Chapter Six: What is Cross-Cultural Across from?

Abstract: This chapter is focused on what became the professional body, or the hegemonic form of social work. Situating the ‘professionalized’ as a form of hegemonic social work shows how power is maintained, even when workers are pushing back against the institution. This chapter examines the profession’s historical role in holding the bounds of exclusion with newcomers by reinforcing assimilationist ideology in direct practice and policy.

Key Concepts: Multiculturalism, civility, professionalization and attachment theory

Introduction:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (2017) tweeted: “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.” This tweet was retweeted more than 400,000 times. Over 750,000 people “liked” the tweet, demonstrating how many people were touched by his remark.

When writing the history of the social sciences discipline(s), it’s the story of the mainstream. In this narrative, the first practitioners, theorists and professors – are white. This story of the mainstream gives the illusion that white social workers are the providers of services and that the stranger, including Black, Indigenous, racialized, and immigrants/forced migrants, are the recipients of ‘help’ (Wright et al., 2021). Wright and their colleagues (2021) call this illusion the “whitewashing of social work.” Because of this whitewashing, the critical contributions of Black, Indigenous, and other racialized groups, such as disabled/people labelled with disabilities, as well as community and grassroots activism, have been erased. This erasure has intentionally led to the embedding of Eurocentric thinking in social work theories, practices and teaching. This has served to reimagine the social work encounter as replicating the colonial encounter.

The account in this chapter is focused on what became the professional body or the hegemonic form of social work. Situating the ‘professionalized’ as a form of hegemonic social work shows how power is maintained, even when workers are pushing back against the institution. This chapter examines the profession’s historical role in holding the bounds of exclusion by reinforcing assimilationist ideology in direct practice and policy. Assimilation and integration have historically been a shifting ground – as concrete markers are difficult to define. Li (2003) explores how integration in policy is framed as participating in Canada’s social, economic and political life but lacks a definition. During the formation of Canada, white masculine notions of self-reliance, strength, and hardness were of the highest value for nation-building (O’Connell, 2012). The ideas and practice of full engagement are as abstract as the definition of “Canadian Society.” As a handmaiden to the state, social work influences and is influenced by popular opinion, policies and the political agenda. For immigration, it is a complex web under the larger rubric of multiculturalism. Ideologically, multicultural policies were to bolster Canada and Canadians as welcoming, friendly (eh!) and embracers of difference. This extends to social work.

Historically, Canada’s approach to resettlement via policy and social services was assimilation – the erasure of difference and amalgamation into the dominant ways of living. Some identities remain as strangers, regardless of the degree of assimilation. This is often connected to geopolitics (e.g., the war on terror or the war on drugs). Canadian national identity is advertised as inclusive, humanitarian, and aligned with the ethical and moral principles of equality (Olsen et al., 2014).  When people have characteristics or beliefs that are considered similar, such as Canadian experience or fluency in English/French, these are considered assets, strengths, and a form of resiliency.  Assimilation also discredits the grief in immigrants/forced migrants that their journey ends upon arrival, and people should be happy/relieved to be in Canada and ‘be’ Canadian (i.e. assimilate). In the project “Men’s Integration and Resettlement” that looked at immigration through the lens of masculine identities (Carranza, 2020), a young person discussed how “people (Canadians) think, you’re here! You’re fine! YOU MADE IT. They think you arrived, so all your problems are gone”. Grief over the life course was largely misunderstood.

Social Work as the Helper/Helped

What is omitted in historical accounts is that social work played a significant role in advancing the colonial project and disciplining bodies into aligning with Whiteness (Fortier & Hon-Sin Wong, 2018; Saraceno, 2012). The National Policy of Canadianisation was enforced in the early 1900s for the millions of non-Europeans arriving in Canada. The policy had a companion handbook for social workers. Immigration social workers were indoctrinated with the manual “Strangers within Our Gates” or “Becoming Canadians” by J. S. Woodsworth (Irving et al., 1995). Coleman (2010) noted that this manual provided a hierarchy of nationalities and ethnic groups, beginning with British immigrants, and detailed how social workers could enforce assimilative strategies. One example is privileging the nuclear family as the organizing principle of social life and economic policies (such as the breadwinner model and medical benefits coverage) and favoring English. This manual, companioned with eugenics, was foundational to the advent of the profession. Social workers were included in the privileged group that could determine belonging, influencing who could do what and, if they could not, what tasks they could perform to advance the nation (building the railroad or domestic work).

As a profession, social work has foot-soldiered to the government and was active in forming early white Canada and enforcing assimilation. Social work/social workers used its discursive power to shape people’s assimilation and resettlement, including access to mandated services (Bhuyan et al., 2017). Social workers were active eugenics agents, immigration status assessors, and child welfare workers. In the mainstream accounts, in the 1890s, both in Canada and the U.S., social work was created to respond to wage labour and rapid urbanization during the “moral reform” era due to the harsh outcomes of capitalism and growing poverty (Fortier & Hon-Sin Wong, 2018). Working under the guise of helping, early social workers (those wanting professional status) were agents of the state – providing services and support that focused on ‘catching –up’ (assimilation) for immigrants/forced migrants. According to Blackstock (2009), this is the core impetus of social work: to control the definition of improvement and to improve others. Helping then hinges on the belief that the ‘helper’ knows or has achieved this ‘improvement.’

The profession is predicated on the social worker as the ‘knower/helper’ and the person engaging in the services as the ‘helpee.’ Wright and colleagues (2021) demarcate this binary via race and status as the stranger, which was implemented via colonization. Nestled into its surveilling role for the government, social work was a part of the seclusion and cultural genocide of Indigenous Peoples (Blackstock, 2007; Johnstone & Lee, 2020). Naming social work’s active role in harmful past practices is central to reconciling with the past and decolonization. Post WW1, eugenics was supported by mainstream Canada and used to advocate for racial heterogeneity (McLaren, 1990). British Whiteness was considered the pinnacle of the colonial hierarchy during this time, excluding Irish and people from the Eastern Bloc. Still, this degree of Whiteness was prioritized over those who were Indigenous, Black, and racialized. As Blackstock (2012) points out, during this time of eugenics, the Residential School system attempted to annihilate Indigenous children and culture, providing a roadmap for Nazi Germany. There is little indication that social work or any profession, including human rights advocates, objected to eugenics or Residential schools (Blackstock, 2012; 2007). During this period, social work relied on the same eugenics science to develop its best practices. Eugenics science, labels, and interventions informed how social work classified fit/unfit and deserving/underserving. Assessment, screening, profiling, and data collection through surveys were developed to determine who could access what services or who was deemed unfit (Johnstone & Yee, 2020).  Social workers could specialize in these assessments that could be used broadly, many of which were applied to immigration and citizenship (Johnstone, 2016). Assessments determined who was eligible for housing, poverty relief, and employment or was ‘fit.’ The profession established its roots through the Sixties Scoop, aligned with the medical model and active in eugenics. Social work remains dependent on the hierarchical binary – the colonial difference – for its modes of operation and best practices.

Social work has disregarded activism strategically over its history to gain professional status and sought alignment with scientific knowledge and the social sciences. Social work and the helping professions have had a key role in constructing and determining who belongs and who is deserving of services – known as gatekeeping. Early Canadian social work was not concerned with state-initiated recruitment of racialized immigrants for labour as they were considered to only be here for employment needs and not social reproduction. Nor was the profession concerned with the treatment of labourers or the immigration of Black people, as these groups were considered not able to assimilate (Jeyapal, 2016). Assimilation as a strategy for resettlement – trying to promote uniformity, less reliance on the state, and economic stability has been known as empowerment. Children have always been an important piece of social work, especially in assimilation efforts. Due to their age and child development thinking, younger people are more apt to adopt Canadian ways (Carranza & Grigg, 2022).

Douglas (2022) writes about Attachment Theory formulated by English Psychoanalyst John Bowlby as the foundation for child welfare in Canada. This theory was based on European nuclear families and the primacy of bonding with parental figures. Attachment theory focuses on the human need for and the early life patterns of creating long-term bonds with one another. Despite criticism, including how individual attachment with a primary caregiver can be incongruent with collective care, attachment theory was highly influential, and its relevance and uptake can be seen today. This theory, filtered through child welfare policy, has had disastrous effects on Indigenous communities through government interventions. Blackstock (2009) indicates that prior to colonization and social work, Indigenous communities worked towards conflict resolution, children living with family and community and redistribution of resources when parental roles needed to be shifted. This created a community that supported families. As Choate and Tortorelli (2022) write, the focus on best-interest of the child has encouraged decision-makers to remove children and place supporting the individual over building the community. Children are also cut off from their Indigenous relatives, culture and community. There is no mediating for the legacies of colonialism in assessing poverty and the assumption of neglect that disproportionately impacts Indigenous communities (Blackstock, 2009). When this theory is applied universally, it reinforces colonization and assimilation by forcing a Eurocentric worldview on Indigenous and other racialized communities (Chaote & Tortorelli, 2022; Ife & Tascon, 2016).

Social workers gained power as knowers by mirroring the colonial relationship. Explicitly, this colonial relationship is the basis for the Sixties Scoop. The colonial relationship is sometimes less easy to name as it shows up in current interventions or ‘values’ embedded in programs. One example is parenting training or training that teach people to clean their homes to keep their children safe, or the Canadian way to work. It can also be traced to the idea, as encouraged in some helping areas to  take any job to get ‘Canadian experience.’ These interventions and lack of policy analysis continue to organize social work education and practice (Jeyapal & Bhuyan, 2016). Social work as a nation-building method is firmly rooted in the early practice of advancing ‘white civility’ (Johnstone, 2015).

Badwell (2015) notes that social work practices are firmly rooted in civilizing narratives from European colonization. ‘White civility’ is the pure, neutral, unbiased stance that informs social, cultural, and epistemological orientations. Achieving white civility has been the cornerstone of what social work considers success. Beginning with voluntary charity work since Confederation 1867, social work has been gendered as female, class(d) are middle-class, and race(d) as white. Understanding social work through the lens of the Coloniality of Gender (Lugones, 2007) positions professionalization as a colonial tool that advanced white womanhood as the archetypal category of femininity. The identity-making within social work aligned white womanhood as naturalized helpers to enrich the upper and middle classes to ‘give back’ and assist others to ‘improve’ ‘catch up’ and ‘rise up’ (Blackstock, 2009; Jeyapal, 2020).

Historical Timeline

White women in Canada formed the Imperial Daughters of the Empire (IODE) to advance white civility as a condition of citizenship. Many of the ‘founding’ women deviated from their privilege of not working outside of the home to address issues they believed to be impacting the nation (Johnstone, 2015). The organization quickly grew, and the mission expanded to include a ‘patriotic’ approach to social work in immigration (Johnstone, 2015). Their work included developing IODE newsletters and articles, which discussed threats of invasion and overpopulation and supported the national fears of racialized immigrants/forced migrants. The IODE claimed to assist people in abandoning old ways of life in favour of those with ‘value.’ Based on a eugenics-laden medical model, poverty and other ‘social ills’ such as addictions were seen as personal and genetic failures. The medical model sees problems with the mind or body originating in biology and physiology, concluding that social ills are preventable and fixable. Eugenics used its ‘science’ to advance the idea of (white) racial purity. One method was to sterilize Indigenous women and those deemed ‘unfit’ – including poor women. Systems of classification were also the product of eugenic ideas in the early twentieth century, including family trees used to trace genetics. The science of genetics generated a body of knowledge that categorized persons according to ability, race, class, mental health, and sexual orientation. This body of knowledge was the basis for the morality drivers of social reform. Crime, prostitution, and delinquency were claimed to be genetically determined and, therefore, a public health issue (McLaren, 1990). Eugenics fueled immigration discourse by indicating that ‘degenerates’ (disabled, racialized) would spread crime and disease (McLaren, 1990). Another example is the classification of working-class women, including racialized women, as degenerate under eugenics, labelling them at at high risk of raising problematic children (Johnstone, 2015). Social work’s public advocacy work during this time was either in support of this version of nation-building or, notably, absent (Blackstock, 2008).

Early gatekeeping saw social workers labelled immigrants/forced migrants as either ‘able to’ or ‘unable to assimilate.’ If a person was deemed ‘unable to assimilate,’ they were marked as a ‘peril to white civilization’ and should not be in Canada (Johnstone, 2015; McLaren, 1995). The IODE was not only aligned with on-the-ground practice, but key members were part of the Canadian Association of Social Workers and the beginnings of Child Protection. The work of the IODE seeped through social work, which influenced assessment practices and policy models by defining what to prevent and exclude based on Whiteness.

Other, early social reformers and social workers were involved with the  Settlement House Movement. Despite the mission placing value on all of humanity, these houses were focused on enforcing Eurocentric values and ways of living. It was founded in England, gaining popularity in Canada around 1910 with the University Settlement House in Toronto, and spread throughout the country (Yan & Lauer, 2008). Intended to bridge cultural and ethnic diversity to assist people’s integration into the host society, settlement houses provided immediate shelter and economic support while living with “citizenship mentors.” The Settlement House chapters for women provided good mothering and domestic skills education, which was code for British approaches to family life. Analysis of the Settlement House Movement has varied. Some, like Yan and Lauer (2008), speak to the community-building aspect of this service, while others, such as Johnstone (2015, 2016), have critiqued the use of a white civilizing discourse. Following Johnstone’s (2016) claims to remedy the “foreign problem,” the programming of settlement houses aimed to ensure that the immigrants/forced migrants would assimilate to become productive members of society (p. 56). This extends beyond the labour force to distancing oneself from other immigrants/forced migrants, participating in mainstream social and political activities and speaking exclusively English/French (Li, 2003). The reform or progressive part of these houses was the idea that each culture could learn from one another, enriching the social fabric of Canada. At the same time, settlement houses and workers provided the government and businesses  ‘insider knowledge’ of other cultures (Johnstone, 2016). This knowledge was used to fuel Canada’s economic edge on the global stage.

Alignment with standardized, rational knowing was constructed in contrast to the grassroots activism of primarily Black women (El-Lahib, 2022). At this time, many voluntary organizations were led by Black, Indigenous and Asian women, which is often written out of historical accounts. The Society for the Protection of Refugees in Toronto in 1854, and soon afterward, in 1856, The Ladies Coloured Fugitive Association, The Queen Victoria Benevolent Society, and The Ladies Freedman Aid Society (Shadd, Cooper, & Smardz Frost, 2005). These organizations were a blend of abolitionism, policy critique, advocacy and relief.

Professionalization began with the first university program in 1914 and the establishment of the Canadian Association of Social Work in 1926 (Johnstone & Lee, 2020). Early work was focused on settlement services, home visiting, daycare, and some poverty alleviation (Irving, 2009). However, these services were provided only to Canadian citizens who brought value into the (imagined) community. The transition from voluntary helper to professional was successful, in part, by reiterating the dominant discourses of the Stranger in immigration and the need for assimilation facilitated by social work. When the University of Toronto opened the first School of Social Work, settlement houses were one of the primary placements. Settlement workers were key lecturers, collaborating and informing the future of social work education (Johnstone, 2015). In these early years, we can see the enactment of the colonial grid, the interlocking processes that produced bodies of value, and the measurements of such. For example, people from Asian countries, based on eugenics presuppositions of their race, were considered fit for labour only. This idea of fitness infiltrated the collective Canadian consciousness, creating visual cues to signal who is out of place. For example, who is assumed to be a CEO or a University professor? The colonial grid gained depth and expanded its reach.

The saturation of “white, British, monoculture” (Johnstone & Lee, 202, p 74) into social work reflected the nation’s burgeoning identity. The narrative of the CASW at the time was that hard work and advancement (the Protestant work ethic) are what immigrants/forced migrants should strive towards (Shadd, Cooper, & Smardz-Frost, 2005). At the same time, social work furthered its credibility by providing surveillance in the social reform movement that approached immigration as a social problem (Irving, Parsons, & Bellamy, 1995). As a social ‘problem,’ immigration needed a resolution, meaning differences needed to be minimized and/or handled. The social problem of migration enforces the use of borders. In reality and theoretically, borders support an imagined community (Anderson, 2016) – and keep people in and out (Ahmed, 2000).

Goals of ‘technical’ and ‘standards’ were advertised by the CASW, as opposed to ethical or social justice priorities. Leaders in the CASW focused on developing practice competencies, technical expertise, and disciplining praxis. Focusing on ‘best practice’ was favoured over its political goal of improving social conditions (Jeyapal, 2020; Johnstone & Lee, 2020). During this time, the profession continued to be under the umbrella of the social sciences. It is essential to recognize that the social sciences have almost always tried to mimic the so-called hard sciences – in accepting the paradigms and elevating the ways of knowing (Ladson-Billings & Donner, 2008). One example is the use of positivism and the medical model that privileges rational, value-neutral frameworks (Fisher & Goodley, 2007). The medical model positions the scientist (or professional) as a knower. The knower determines the meaning of the relationship in this classic power-over relationship (Farre & Rapley, 2017). The professional hierarchy haunts social work in the replication of the colonial difference.

During the migration of non- Jewish Europeans during and after the post-WWII period, social work was gaining traction because of funding and was in its “Golden Era” to build back a better Canada (Irving et al., 1995). The social safety net was thought to be adequate; white masculinity and the protestant work ethic were at their height. White men were employed in the 40-hour work week, and a (nuclear) family could live on one income, with social and health benefits. Despite a push for multiculturalism, initiatives with immigrants/forced migrants continued to encourage civic participation in established ways, such as volunteering, political involvement and employment acquisition (Sakamoto, 2016). Post WWII saw an eruption of anti-migration, anti-Semitic backlash across Canada, with a fervent disdain for ‘difference.’ Right-wing nationalism was visibly on the rise, and after the bombing of the American naval base at Pearl Harbor in Honolulu, Hawaii, Japanese Canadians were forced into internment camps, work camps, and prison of war camps on Canadian soil or deportation (Cohn, 1985). This persecution was legal and actionable throughout Canada. A counter-narrative was critical of this persecution and divided social work into political agendas. During this time, Universal human rights had become a centerpiece of the profession and fit well with the dominant ideology of conservatism (Johnstone, 2015).  Activating this conservativism was the idea that ‘privilege’ was the outcome of hard work, a message the female-dominated profession amplified while ignoring the growing left-wing concern about white supremacy in Canada (Johnstone, 2015; Johnstone & Lee, 2020; Sakamoto et al., 2017).

In 1945, the Citizen Branch (now Citizenship and Immigration Canada) was established to promote unity and national identity. The branch implemented social and cultural programs focusing on amplifying similarities and encouraging people to forget racial and ethnic differences. Social workers implemented this unifying agenda by appealing to a universal humanity (Iacovetta, 2006). Within the same time (1947), the Citizenship Act –  declared Canadians as no longer British subjects (Knowles, 1997). As Canada became a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a condition was the loosening of the regulations on migration. The loosening of regulations meant strategic control from the Citizen Branch to ensure that these advances did not translate into the national identity – it remained emblematically white (Johnstone & Lee, 2020). Unity and diversity were implemented together to give the illusion of ‘respect for difference,’ but the implementation did not materialize. During this time, festivals and multicultural weeks became popularized to promote tolerance and learning. Ultimately, these festivals controlled when people could where they could publicly enjoy their history and provided optional engagement for non-immigrants/forced migrants. Iacovetta (2006) notes that these festivals lead to the fetishization and exoticization of ‘difference’, rooting the ‘stranger/Other’ in a different time and geography for entertainment (Ahmed, 2000).

The Conservativism, at the heart of ‘professional’ social work, was amplified in the 1950s Cold War era. Anti-communist rhetoric across North America stained socialism and left-leaning activism. What was slowly emerging was distrust for socialism and unionism, presenting the need for surveillance and enforcement (Foucault, 1977). With this, social work’s disciplining services amplified state entrenchment increased – such as child welfare and immigration selection (Yellowhorn & Harding, 2020). Discipline and surveillance were found in all aspects of the social safety net, from poverty alleviation to health care, to ensure appropriate government spending (Iacovetta, 2006). This degree of discipline, repression, and ongoing marginalization created what Focault called a “docile body” (Focault, 1977 p. 9), where social workers became conduits for the dominant discourse. Resistance, advocacy, and social justice for social workers ascribing to the ‘professional identity’ became difficult during these times – as they were a part of the system.

As those coming from ‘preferred’ countries continued to decline, the increase of labour needs and the international pressure to reduce the coloniality in the immigration system was mounting. Canada instituted its universal points-based system in the late 1960s, which claimed to encourage more diversity in people and professionals, enhancing Canada’s knowledge base and economy. Bhuyan and colleagues (2017) suggest that this change moved immigration away from a publicly determined model to one that meets corporate interests. The points-based system also gave rise to a new form of coloniality – Canadian Experience. Shifting toward meeting the needs of the labour market was happening amidst the backdrop of social and civil resistance – including in some areas of social work and social workers. The 1960s and 1970s were a complex time in Canada, with the Civil Rights movement, the women’s movement, and the advancement of labour rights – amidst the ongoing violence in Residential Schools and the Sixties Scoop.

There was an explosion of activism across the United States, to which Canada followed suit in an effort to advance social, cultural, and political rights (Sakamoto & Pitner, 2005). The Canadian Bill of Rights was introduced in 1960 and prohibited discrimination for reasons of race, national origin, colour, religion, or sex; in 1970, the Canadian government ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (Dewing, 2013). The conservative areas of social work continued to focus on its professionalization and identity as uniquely Canadian, separating from American influences at the expense of any social justice work (Johnstone & Yee, 2020). Despite this, individual social workers and groups continued to protest and were involved in resistance movements and grassroots activism (Choudry, 2005). In the later 1970s, responding to racial activism and civil rights, Black social workers formed the Association of Black Social Workers (ABSW) in Montreal to address the unique needs of Black clients (Johnstone, 2015). This history is often less discussed as scholars have noted the intentional erasure of Black, Indigenous, and racialized advocates, activists, and social workers.

Multiculturalism

As Canada began adopting policies of multiculturalism, this approach and language filtered into social work. Multiculturalism as a value is rooted in liberalism (‘respect for difference’ or ‘different but equal’). This approach can be problematized as remaking diversity into the bordering of the ‘us’ (who belongs) and ‘them’ (the stranger). Even when differences of language and culture are absent, the image of the stranger blankets racialized immigrant/forced migrants into an Other status – non-Christian religions, or non-English speaking are examples. Being multicultural means defining who is an accepted occupant of space (citizens, those who belong, the norm) and who is diverse from the norm. Ahmed (2016) indicates that Multiculturalism in practice relies on a deficit model of culture while managing the threat of the stranger. The deficit model positions people as different from the norm because of their culture, which is constructed as less than or behind the dominant in advancement. According to social work historian Yoosun Park (2005), multiculturalism constructs culture as a difference that immigrants/forced migrants must manage to fit in, belong and be considered as deserving to be safe. Differences are measured through what will be tolerated and accepted by Canada and Canadians vs. what must be changed. One example is professional Social Work bodies celebrating diversity, often with food and events or schools having courses on ‘special’ topics or alternative methods. Celebrating diversity in these ways keeps the epistemological and ontological roots of the knowledge base to maintain the status quo. For example, a focus on Anti-Oppressive Practice or cultural competency over shifting to Afrocentric social work.

This is important to understand for social work and the helping professions as exclusion defines the in-group (based on what they are ‘not’) and contains the stranger in the out-group. Who is in the out-group defines who belongs in the in-group. Immigrants/forced migrants are constructed as strangers, which in turn impacts the philosophical underpinnings of ‘help.’ Strangers are known as strange which is out of place in Canadian society. Strangers have historically been Black, Jewish, Muslim, Chinese, and Japanese immigrants, GLBTQQSA2+, and those with disabilities – axis of the colonial grid. While policy has changed over time (e.g., removing the Chinese Exclusion Act or introducing the Points System), legislation continues to control who can access citizenship, regularizing some while maintaining a temporary, precarious and easily deportable class such as Temporary Foreign Workers (Jeyapal, 2016).

Multiculturalism in Social Work

As European, mostly white immigration dwindled, there was an acknowledgment that assimilation was ill-defined as a policy approach and was not working (Berry, 2013) – and new frameworks were required to manage ‘difference.’ Despite Canada’s move away from Eurocentric immigration policy in 1978 and the adoption of multiculturalism (George, 2002), racialized immigrants/forced migrants remained at a structural disadvantage (Carranza, 2017). Integration, as opposed to assimilation, has emerged as the ultimate goal of social work with immigrants/forced migrants (Li, 2002). Theoretical and scholarly work challenging migration, assimilation, and integration frameworks have flourished in the past two decades, yet mainstream social work remains in the trappings of Western ontologies. These hegemonic discourses of how to be healthy, appropriate forms of parenting and family, and navigating society are foundational to social work. Initiatives to increase professional ‘preparedness’ have ranged from adopting cultural competency and humility frameworks (Garran & Werkmeister, 2013) and taking courses on working with immigrants/forced migrants (Dominelli, 2017). Social work was focused on helping people overcome barriers and “fit in.” The intentional moving away from assimilation, what difference and how much was tolerable – framed this policy and practice transition to the cultural mosaic/multiculturalism. For example, cuisine, celebrations, dance, and ‘traditional’ fashion are accepted and enrich the cultural mosaic. ‘Breaking bread’ together is a low-investment way to engage with elements of culture. What makes this ‘okay’ is that it is optional. Non-immigrant/forced migrants are not required to engage in food or multicultural festivals. However, in the workplace, tolerance and openness to cuisines are less culturally ‘okay,’ and scent-free policies are used to regulate people bringing ‘ethnic’ foods (Kim, 2017).

The paradigm of the cultural mosaic has considerable overlap with how social work engages with immigrants/forced migrants and the liberal ‘respect for difference’ approach. Shifts in social work’s best practice models have diverted from direct assimilation practices toward subversive strategies to help people ‘learn to be Canadian.’ For example, in the 2018 study, “Immigrant Acculturation and the Intersection of Child Welfare,” one social worker described immigrant/forced migrant families as: “they are just starting from a different place [than Canadian-born citizens],” reflecting the different but equal value held by many Canadians and the desire to help get ‘them’ to a place that’s acceptable. Other social workers noted the assimilation inherent in their work with families. For example: “there is a reason behind it [requiring families to act in accordance to Child Welfare standards], but it’s still trying to impose these values onto families, and I feel that it isn’t always fair and it takes away their autonomy as a family to raise their children [….]. “It’s always a struggle imposing these white middle-class values.” Assimilation requires people to blend into Canada through ways of thinking and being.

According to Nylund (2006), elements of multicultural education have been commonplace in university social work programs since the late 1970s or early 1980s. The central themes of multiculturalism were translated into the practice model – cultural competency. This model is an ongoing process whereby the helper gains awareness of and appreciation for cultural diversity and the ability to work sensitively, respectfully, and proficiently with those from diverse backgrounds (Azzopardi & McNeill, 2016). According to Lum (1999), the culturally competent practice model focuses on four areas: (1) cultural awareness, (2) knowledge acquisition, (3) skill development, and (4) inductive learning. A central assumption of this model is that, by teaching students about various ethnic and racial groups, one would be more sensitive and empathic to the needs of the stranger in the social work encounter (Lum, 1999). As with the national multiculturalism policy, ‘getting to know’ and ‘knowing’ people who are different is a strategy for successful engagement.

Cultural competency has evolved. However, like the medical model, the ideological origins still have influence today. There can be cultural differences between Canadian and Scandinavian or European – but this model is primarily concerned with racialized differences (McLaren, 1995). Given the history and the naturalizing of white womanhood into the profession, the subject position of those developing cultural competency was one of belonging – through whiteness, employability, and citizenship. Much of the literature indicates that the trappings of cultural competence lie in its apolitical stance, weak analysis of power relations, promotion of othering, and inadequate disregard for oppression at systemic and structural levels (Abrams & Moio, 2009; Azzopardi & McNeill, 2016). McLaren (1995) also identified that cultural competency lacks a critique of structural exclusion, meaning it delinks the outcomes of oppression to the systems that produce it. One example is understanding poverty for immigrants/forced migrants as an individual issue related to gender roles and not the result of how the labour market is organized. Poverty continues to be viewed as an individual failure to work hard enough, assimilate, gain Canadian experience or save prior to arrival in Canada. Excluding a systemic analysis erases the correlations between poverty to discrimination in employment practices, including not recognizing credentials or how racialized women are often streamlined into low-wage work. Using cultural competency situates social workers across from the stranger. Social Workers are engaging from their subject position to work ‘across’ cultures.

The desire to work with people from various cultures is not inherently problematic but can result in judging from a position or ways of knowing rooted in Whiteness (Nylund, 2006). As Blackstock (2009) indicates,  the helpee is considered as needing to be improved, and looking externally for that guidance. The embedded nature of Whiteness can obscure the complexities of resettlement and being racialized through this process. It can also mean ascribing to the narrative held in the Canadian psyche, such as the protestant work ethic/myth of meritocracy. Making whiteness the pinnacle of humanity, claiming it to be a natural state of being, and leaving it un-interrogated is the crux of creating the Stranger/Other. Like the medical model, creating Strange(r)ness in relation to self can lead social workers and other professionals to pathologize what they deem ‘problems’ to culture (Jensen, 2011). The Stranger is reinforced through language, the use of ‘them’ as a group identity in relation to ‘us’ (the dominant), rooting people into an ahistorical understanding of difference. An example of ahistorical understandings is how the Global North and classic feminism view the Hijab as backward and oppressive, yet little analysis is applied to the use of Christian Nuns’ habit (traditional outfit).

With ‘cross–cultural’ and cultural competency, there is little dialogue on the starting point. The culture that the social worker is looking from. This means the initial cultural lens and perspective from which the social worker approaches their profession is not named. These approaches reinforce that there is one normative position to work from. It assumes that the professional/client do not share racial, ethnic, linguistic, or cultural similarities. At times, acknowledging and valuing difference can seem optimistic, exemplified by statements such as ‘the same, but different’ and ‘we are all equal’ slogans. Multiculturalism and cultural competency can universalize experiences as an easy way to understand people or ‘know’ the Stranger/Other. For example universalizing, Carranza (2021) discusses the construction of women from Central America along the colonial grid in Canada and the expectations assigned to their identity. The Global North interprets the gender binary for much of Central America and South America as encompassed in machismo and marianismo.

Machismo posits that men must protect and exert dominance, aggression, and oppression on women. On the other hand, Marianismo cements women’s obedience, submission to men, and selfless devotion to family—mirroring the Virgin Mary’s attributes (Gutierrez, 2004). These gendered attributes hail from Catholicism and devotion to religion (Carranza, 2017). From the lens of the Global North, Machismo may be constructed as hyper-masculine, leading to abuse, and Marianismo is correlated with passivity and acceptance. Cultural competency may position these tropes as the cause or source of problems during resettlement if there is abuse in the relationship. This framework delinks experiences of violence from the stress of migration, racism, colonization, or structural oppression (Carranza, 2017).

Around the same period of the growing activism of the 1960s and 1970s, Anti-Oppressive Practice (AOP), influenced by Marxist, socialist, and radical ideologies, structural/sociological understandings of oppressions, emancipatory and feminist perspectives were emerging (Dominelli, 2002; Sakamoto, 2005). Sakamoto and Pitner (2005) note that the AOP framework was the first time ‘professional’ social work was linked to social justice. Each of these theories approaches one form of oppression as its entry point. For example, feminism focuses on gender and radical social work, on class. AOP umbrellas each oppression (e.g., heteronormativity or racism) to collapse each into a larger unit of analysis.  AOP provides a framework for understanding the range of structural marginalization(s) to include people’s experiences. ‘Lived experience’ becomes the focus of working at the individual level, with social workers using the encounter to challenge the dynamics of power.

AOP has its problems. Collaboration and equal partnership are critical components of this approach, but as a ‘top-down’ profession, these goals may not actualize in practice. While social work has been navigating its reckoning with inherent power dynamics and atrocities – this has not successfully resolved this dynamic (Janes, 2016). As Sakamoto and Pitner (2005) point out, this power dynamic makes the encounter vulnerable to reproducing the ‘knower/known’ trap. People may not want to engage or have their experience utilized for social justice (Dominelli, 2012). Morgaine and Capous-Desyllas (2019) have suggested that the underlying model of AOP is around redistribution and recognition of rights. There is little change to structures and systems in both approaches, instead relying on the ‘separate but equal’ and ‘tolerance of difference’ approaches. Johnstone and Lee (2020) draw attention to the power ascribed to the profession in determining who belongs and receives services from the state. With this power, organizations and workers have enforced and surveilled for the state in immigration work. While cultural competency and AOP may have brought social work closer to social justice work, the power dynamics remain reminiscent of the colonial relationship – with state-ascribed power.

Immigration and social work experienced a neoliberal turn in the 1990s (Baines, 2015; Bhuyan et al., 2017). This turn is often associated with globalization and modernity – moving forward, progress on a global scale. Neoliberalism encourages a basic welfare state with minimal intervention from the government, as the market (economy) will function independently and provide for people. In this idea, individuals and families can work, accumulate wealth and care for themselves. If a person needs services beyond what the government provides (for example, disability support), a family member, faith-based organization, or community should be able to provide for them and assist with any excess (Baines, 2015). Resettlement and immigration are often framed as ‘too costly’ (Thobani, 2000) – a companion thought to the narratives of overpopulation, not enough resources, and threats of invasion by the stranger (Carranza, 2017). These narratives support government cutbacks to ‘welfare services’ and the attempt to shift responsibility – including resettlement– to charity organizations, churches, and private businesses. Immigration and resettlement assistance became more punitive and restrictive during this period, justified by a ‘scarcity’ of resources. Surveilling the ‘need’ and ‘deservingness’ increased the role of social workers in government and community organizations (Bhuyan et al., 2017; Sakamoto, 2006). Timelines were established, and benchmarks were created – to ensure people were actively working towards ‘catching up’ or participating in the economy and not ‘draining’ it.

Canada maintains a pre-determined level of immigration to resolve flat population growth and to protect the image of a welcoming nation, receiving international recognition for its multicultural policies. With the narrative of scarcity rising amidst neoliberalism (Thobani, 2000), the idea that opening borders would diminish Canadian resources fuels public support for ‘select’ immigrants – those closer to Whiteness. The points system continues to value Whiteness as the unmarked body: cis-gendered, able, heteronormative, and productive. As the points system gained traction by valuing transferability and ease of resettlement deemed immigrants/forced migrants without ‘Canadian Experience’ and education ‘ineligible/insufficient/deficient’. This assessment was a subversive way to exclude certain people without infringing on rights or protections. Despite this racial codification and justifiable employment discrimination, the usage of ‘Canadian Experience’ remained until an Ontario Human Rights appeal in 2013 (Bhuyan et al., 2017). Social work was active in this discriminatory practice in two ways: advocating for volunteering and low-wage work to assist in employment experience. Second, requiring education and experience to be a professional social worker in Canada.

Decolonial approaches are gaining traction in social work but remain limited to deconstructing the Other. Learning about ‘other’ epistemologies and ontologies remains optional (Carranza, forthcoming). Rossiter (2011) challenges the capacity of social work to engage in decolonization with its footing in violence and exploitative history, suggesting a reorientation of social work and its ethics. Social work knowledge continues to be steeped in Whiteness, amplifying coloniality and promoted as generalizable across the globe. Keeping a generalist knowledge base encourages confidence to work with the stranger –  people in Canada, and even across borders (Razack, 2009). Social work is taught as placid, flexible, and adaptable – a set of skills that can be applied in various settings. Understanding how knowledge is recreated in the encounter with immigrants/forced migrants is essential to revealing the embedded Whiteness of the discourse. We must center how organizations attempt to hold fast to coloniality – no matter the identities of those working.

Conclusion

The history discussed in this chapter is essential to understanding the current Canadian nation-building project. In its various manifestations, social work remains an insider to the state. Since the beginning of professionalization, social work has claimed an area of competence, determined by a unique knowledge, based on personal suitability to move practice away from volunteering or neighborly giving (Nothdurfter & Lorenz, 2010). Professional social work has intentionally sought insider status amidst a system that conceptualizes nation and citizenship through an interlocking system of coloniality – class relations, racialization, and patriarchy (Sharma, 2000). Gaining professional recognition in the Global North meant alignment with the medical model and practice standards. Attempting to find uniqueness meant distancing ‘helping’ from the hard science professions. Social work has more recently propelled an image of a grassroots, social justice narrative, which ironically has shaped and been shaped by a whitewashed narrative (Gooding & Mehrota, 2021). Gooding and Mehrota (2021) write about how the history of social work has not only been whitewashed by dismissing the contributions of Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour – but embedded in the white supremacy that supports their erasure. Kelechi and their colleagues (2021) map the history of social work while layering an analysis of how key figures, theories, and practices were erased. This whitewashed narrative has glorified the contributions of white, namely women, in favour of the more radical work of Black, Indigenous, and Racialized social workers.

This insider status was made possible by the attempts to adopt the rationale and language of modernity (Nothdurfter & Lorenz, 2010). This rationale of modernity and the reliance on the positivist paradigm promoted the respectability of social work as professional, and in academia. ‘What works’ and ‘best practices’ are based on the logic of modernity and rationality.

Coloniality is a rethinking of how colonialism operationalized its ideologies in different times and spaces to permeate all aspects of social life. There is a complex relationship between the past and present that continues. Coloniality allows us to investigate how the colonial encounter and colonial relationship model the complexities impacting social work today. Looking through a lens of coloniality:

• Reflect on how your own social work/placement experience(s) support the notion of assimilation
• How do the discourses of worthiness and belonging are present in the day-to-day of your social work discussions?
• What is the value of decolonial social work?
  • What is gained?
  • What is lost?