Chapter Five: The Making of Whiteness

Abstract: This chapter opens up a space to engage with the critical theories that have been deconstructing social work. This is not an exhaustive list, but this discussion traces some of the key ways that social work, theoretically, has attempted to: make and (re)make whiteness as the knower, engage (and know) the stranger, reduce the ‘strangeness’ of the stranger, and determine what difference is acceptable. Critical theories have brought to light social work’s construction of ‘the Other’ and maintenance of the stranger; however, there remains a significant gap in the literature on how the colonial identity and relationships are navigated in working with immigrants/forced migrants. In responding to this gap, some perspectives from workers in the areas of settlement, community development, child protection and therapists were drawn from three research studies discussed in this chapter. The research studies are “Examining the Intersection of Immigrants’ Acculturation and Child Welfare,” Examining the Intersection of Immigrant Women’s Acculturation & Mental Health,” and “Exploring the Dynamics of Intimate Partner Violence amongst the Diaspora”

Key Concepts: Whiteness, objectivity, neutrality and securitization

Introduction 

“Definitely stigma. This is systemic racism that is what it is, right? It is systemic racism, and probably colonialism, systemic colonialism. ~CAS worker”

Since the Confederation, Canadian immigration laws and policies have changed considerably. However, one goal has remained constant— control over immigration via— covert and overt forms of discrimination (Hollifield, Martin & Orrenius, 2014). Tropes of ‘a better life’ and upward mobility present modernity, progress and development as the pathway taken by the Global North to be advanced. The Global South is then developing, underdeveloped, representative of a time before or stuck in a ‘backward’ way of life. Modernity works because the Global North is constructed as the only opportunity for countries of the South to achieve safety/security/economic support/progress/education, and human rights (Carranza & Grigg, 2022). Initiatives with non-white immigrants/forced migrants remain focused on assimilation to society and employment in a way that remakes whiteness as the ideal. This chapter examines the profession’s role in support, advocacy and activism while holding the bounds of exclusion. These insights situate social work within —whiteness and the maintenance of power, even when pushing back against the institution that made them, including the welfare state.

Influences in the Canadian Context 

The context in which helping operates is influenced by the neoliberal state, funding and which practice approaches are valued. Social work often reflects the national temperature on issues and holds the binary of difference (Jeffrey, 2004). The profession is dependent on ‘clients’; ultimately, keeping the stranger strange is the basis for a multicultural approach. Meaning there must be differences for social workers to engage with. Multiculturalism, as discussed in previous chapters, ideologically supports inclusion yet maintains immigrants/forced migrants as the Other to keep the dominant (culture, identity, etc.) as the ‘norm.’ One example could be Christian holidays recognized nationally and in many workplaces, while non-Christian celebrations are ‘add on’ or special interest. Even at the federal level, non-Christian religious holidays are not recognized in workplace settings, and only certain types of workplaces are allowed to recognize them in the same way. For example, only federal places of business can recognize Truth and Reconciliation Day as a holiday

Immigration control and securitization heavily influence public and community tolerance and reception. Narratives are built to justify exclusion, violence and the securitization of borders. After 9/11, Thobani (2007) and Jeyapal (2016) speak to the Globalized ‘War on Terror’ or ‘the age of terror.’ Anybody marked to possibly be associated with religious extremism from what is called the ‘Middle East’ and Southeast Asia was/is deemed a threat to Canadian security and way of life. This discourse constructing those from the Middle East and Southeast Asia as a threatening stranger, had been growing for decades, largely over oil and global control (Jeyapal, 2018.). 9/11 saw support for increasing measures of “protection” from countries defined as the  Middle East into immigration policy through a range of security measures. Amplifying narratives about the stranger, associating radicalism, extremism and terrorism with geography and religion. Violence is constructed as inherent to cultures and races that are Othered, and in immigration discourse, it is the individual immigrant/forced migrant that could be responsible for these failures, making them ‘undeserving (Thobani, 2007). The post-9/11 world saw a wave of changes in immigration policies and responses to immigrants/forced migrants – deepening the divide of difference. In the age of terror, those on the other side of the war were classified as ‘too’ different. Prior to this, the ‘War on Drugs’ marked those arriving from Central America and some South American countries as dangerous due to gang affiliation and narco-trafficking (Simmons, 2010).

For difference to occur, there must be a self or standard by which anything outside is measured. Forged during colonialism, the race hierarchy – whiteness, became the standard. In terms of immigration, the standard of belonging is those who were born here and who visually ‘fit’ the image. Thobani (2007) speaks to how citizenship is understood – from the perspective of the centre (those who belong) and not those who have been denied access (Indigenous people, immigrants/forced migrants). Certain knowledge and identities have been ideally suited to occupy the space of centre/standard. The crux of this stronghold is access to a particular knowledge – objective, neutral and rational. Also, the type of knowledge and alignment social work advocated for during professionalization.

Difference does not need to be extreme or associated with a Global war. The Angus Reid poll previously discussed found that while the majority of Canadians (roughly over 72%) supported immigration, close to 80% of those same respondents wished that immigrants/forced migrants would ‘do more’ to blend in and ‘act Canadian.’ Nationalism is what fuels the Canadian identity, inclusive of fabled multiculturalism, and supporting the prioritization of the nation’s needs above all others (Jeyapal, 2018). In this case, the ‘need’ to act Canadian. Canada promotes a national image of safety for (white) citizens and claims this for immigrants/forced migrants as well. However, those not born in Canada can and do have the ‘privilege’ of citizenship taken away (Jeyapal, 2018). Canada limits citizenship not only by numbers, but in categories – making some easily expendable for labour and deportable.

Whiteness 

The concept of the well-worn pathway is useful for identifying social work’s orientation toward whiteness, which troubles the moves toward social justice and decolonization (Jeyapal & Bhuyan, 2016). As an ethics-governed practice advocating for a more equitable and just society, social work remains in lock-step with whiteness (Carranza, 2022). Ahmed (2007) suggests that whiteness is the backdrop to experience; it becomes worldly through its disappearance – in social work, this becomes naturalized in skills and suitability. Whiteness has been theorized as ‘unmarked,’ represented by invisibility, a non-colour and idealized as a non-race. The historically informed context of today has naturalized the white body to be seen as the human body. A body must be seen and understood to be white, but whiteness’s power is derived from not being able to see it or name it (Ahmed, 2006). According to Ahmed (2006) whiteness can be traced through its disappearance. Invisibility is the narrative intentionally produced by whiteness, but this only exists in the imagination of those who inhabit it (Ahmed, 2006). Whiteness has attempted to orientate itself away from inclusion in discussions on the processes of racialization. The deliberate attempt at avoidance at being named complicates how we can, and do, talk about it amidst whiteness as the background to experience. How this emerges is in who’s experiences and emotions are validated.

One such example is grief – whose expressions are valued? For immigrants/forced migrants, their grief for the losses of family, community and homeland are misunderstood and invalidate the gratefulness they are expected to show. With the achievement of safety and a ‘better life’ the expectation is that they proclaim and exhibit thankfulness for this. In the study on men’s integration, one child of immigrants/forced migrant parents explained,

Men never talk about this loss. When they come they have to get a job and normally they make these decisions quick. And they are on the bottom, everyone keeps telling them that they are lucky. Lucky. So they can be thinking about home and missing it. Even for me, when I work with people who didn’t migrate will ask if I am happy that I have all these opportunities, never understanding that I might miss [country of origin]. Like actually maybe they don’t care.

In the way that grief is invalidated and not recognized for immigrants/forced migrants, emotions are celebrated and naturalized for those who belong. In the making of whiteness and femininity, empathy has been a foundational emotion for ‘goodness’ (Jeffrey, 2004). As coloniality has attempted to erase whiteness (making it the natural default), it becomes ‘the way we do things here’. For example, the script of whiteness that encourages showing empathy in social work, where whiteness structures engagement with the Stranger – is an undetectable governing rule. These scripts frame the social work encounter and professional ethics as ‘how-to’ practices. Social work was built from the white female body to be at home, extend, take up space and belong.

I share the following experience to highlight how some bodies are excluded and marked as not belonging:

The city that I work in has been establishing community-university networks for research and student placements for over a decade. The University is well known in the community, and the majority of staff at the organizations are familiar with placements and the process. Many are alumni of the same University. I often arrive at a mainstream organization and introduce myself as a ‘faculty’ from the School of Work, and more often than not, I get a second look. In this gaze, I can see surprise, hesitation, and confusion – challenging my assertion of ‘Faculty.’ I wait for a bit. A second person will generally ask me again who I was and what organization I represented. Often with the same look of confusion. The person that I’m there to see usually gets paged the second time I introduce myself.

The goal of whiteness is uniformity, hegemony and supremacy. Akun (2021) and Akun and Jones (2001) state that white supremacy culture divides white people from Black, Indigenous and Racialized people and disconnects us all from nature. This was done so that the elite could dictate who is fully human to bestow privilege on some and violence upon the stranger because of their strangeness. Conceptualizing white supremacy culture, Akun and Jones (2001) use the words of Cristina Rivera Chapman from the Earthseed Land Collective:

White supremacy culture is so common and widespread; the invisible ocean we all must tread. Mi abuela likened it to gravity in conversations about US imperialism in Latin America. This ocean deeply informs what we think and feel and even how we think and feel. It has to. It’s a matter of sink or swim. And for some of us sink means drown. While white supremacy and structural racism are not simple. I would say, at the end of the day, what white supremacy culture needs me/us to believe is this one thing: The only way for me to swim is someone else has to sink (p. 9).

Whiteness determines who is a fish, allowed to learn to tread water, moved towards an area of safety in the ocean, and who needs to not survive to maintain dominance. Most importantly, who is at home and swimming is effortless.

Whiteness in Social Work 

Social work went mainstream in the 1920’s, starting in universities and pushing for professional recognition. Practice standards and best practices used the knowledge base of the ‘hard’ sciences and aligned with the medical model to produce uniformity in practice. With the establishment of the Canadian Association of Social Work, the image of the profession was to be individual engagement and propelling an image of grassroots and social justice. This attempt at a double focus ironically has shaped and been influenced by the whitewashed narrative discussed in previous chapters.  The history of social work has not only been whitewashed by dismissing the contributions of Black, Indigenous and People of Colour, but it is also embedded in the larger structure of white supremacy that supports their erasure. Additionally, Kelechi and their colleagues (2021) map the history of social work, layering an analysis of the ways that key figures, theories and practices have intentionally been left out of the discussion. This narrative has glorified the contributions of white, namely women, while erasing the work of Black, Indigenous and racialized social workers. This structuring of the profession as white in both identity (who ‘looks’ as if they can ‘help’) and in knowledge – the scripts of whiteness (Badwell, 2015) challenges the capacity to work towards social justice. The connection to state apparatuses, too, challenges this – social workers are employed directly by the government, quasi-government and not-for-profits (funded in part by government).

Question: Can social work be decolonized?

How, as a profession, can social work move towards social justice?

Social work remains concerned with the management of difference (Jeffrey, 2004). Earlier, the work was to overcome difference as a personal failure. Overtime, overcoming shifted to determining which differences were valued, ‘okay’ or must be changed. At times, social work approaches determinations of difference by stereotypes and assumptions. For example, one settlement in the RCYP project worker whose caseload was immigrant/forced migrant youth said, “Central Americans and Latinos like to party and be loud – have a lot of fun. This is fine for being social and doesn’t need to change, but at work, no, this is not the way. So it’s a part of my job to help learn this.” In discussing other elements of resettlement and changes, they said, “With the people from Central America – and Latinos – the biggest problem for them is time. Being on time. Understanding that Canadians are on time, and it’s rude to make people wait”.

This either/or thinking is a product of whiteness (Okun & Jones, 2000). As a part of the colonial project, this ‘rightness’ formed the basis of institutions, professions, and communities. This binary of right/wrong has been woven into politics, work, and our social lives (Okun, 2021). There is a value placed on individualism – the protestant work ethic, being self-made, and the myth of meritocracy. Individualism and the idea that one should be neutral, without emotion, logical and rational and is correlated to objectivity. Historically, objective knowledge is seen in the medical model as the gold standard. Objectivity is a crucial feature of white supremacy culture (Okun, 2021; Okun & Jones, 2000).

• When considering the right/wrong ways, how does ‘outside-the-box’ thinking challenge or reinforce this logic?
• Is everyone supported in outside-the-box practices?

Research remains a key feature of social work education and practice. This is another way that whiteness saturates the profession, as objectivity forms the backbone of ‘pure research.’ It is in this type of research that ‘rationality’ and ‘rigour’ were used by those in power to deny the legitimacy of dissenting voices (Ermine et al., 2005). Enforcing an idea that each piece of research must be validated, i.e., claims of racism must be proven or that those who experience an issue cannot be objective in researching it (McGuire & Cisneros, 2020). When Black, Indigenous and racialized scholars engage in research, especially on their own lived experiences, there are claims of being ‘too close’ to the data, unable to see neutrally. This mirrors how social workers who share identities that have been Othered are often seen as not having boundaries or too close to a situation, as discussed previously in “Helpers as Knowers.“

Research is used to develop interventions and best practices (Johnstone, 2015). Ethical practice, too, is haunted by objectivity and neutrality. There is enforcement of ‘best’ practice as having ‘one right way’ as this thinking maintains the centre. Coloniality is activated in the social work encounter in considering what gets funded in terms of services for immigrants/forced migrants – programs that support the development of economic and social capital. Job and skill retraining (despite previous credentials), obtaining Canadian experiences, and language training – all of which are deemed essential for positive integration (Jeyapal, 2017).

In settlement work, workers run the risk of ‘knowledge coloniality’ or encouraging immigrants/forced migrants to adopt different forms of whiteness thinking. While there are many theoretical frameworks to prevent this – decolonial, anti-racist and anti-oppressive practice, this practice still underlies the profession. Clarke and Wan (2011) identified that while the concepts of anti-oppression were gaining traction in social work education, research, policy and practice, the settlement sector was slow to adopt them. Social work has courses and specializations in immigration at the college and university level, yet a 2016 report found social workers self-identified as ill-prepared to work with immigrants/forced migrants. The British Colombia Association of Social Workers (2016) noted that those entering and who had been in the field for over 5 years were not prepared to assist in the areas of policy and legislation and resettlement processes. What these studies indicate is the knowledge of legislation and issues surrounding resettlement are not prioritized across employment fields. This rang true in Examining the Intersection of Immigrants’ Integration/Acculturation and Child Welfare, where one worker commented:

I have been there, Children’s Aid Society for 2 years, I don’t know what every single training available in any CAS building but I’ve never seen training and it’s not mandatory to go to any training that has to do with immigrant and refugee women. There is no training at all, I’ve seen. Maybe there is some, sometimes the training is so sporadic it’s not constantly offered, but certainly nothing mandatory that’s constantly offered to our new workers to work with immigrant/ refugee women, there is some certain trainings you can go to with trauma that is often specific, so have training on how to work with the situation but I haven’t been encouraged by anybody to go any understanding trauma of having flown from another country or you know coming to Canada being at, you know, ground zero, you know nothing but you are here because you got sponsored you got maybe family from church helping you, but definitely not helping so much, so yeah I would say that we don’t really have any training to deal with the situation, you sort of learn as you do it and that’s impossible.

The study found systemic issues related to race and citizenship status to negatively impact immigrant/forced migrants. The systemic issues identified by community members, service users, CAS and settlement workers arose from the production of whiteness and assimilative underpinnings of social work (Carranza, 2017). One service user commented that CAS perceives families: “It’s very much embedded white middle-class standards that set their expectations.” In part, this lens of looking from the Western gaze allows for workers to practice sanctioned ignorance. The Western gaze privileges ways of being hailing from British notions – the nuclear family, parenting practices and attachment to primary caregivers. So when this is seen as the most important, having knowledge of what falls outside the norm is not considered relevant or required.

One way this emerges in direct practice is in over estimating the primacy of the nuclear family, as happens in the Global North. A young person discussed how:

In therapy, they didn’t understand that I grew up with my Grandma and all her sisters and friends back home and moved here to be with my mom—after she had been here a long time to go to school. Like I had to apply for my own citizenship. So it’s not like your normal Canadian Mom/Son relationship. Everything they talk about doesn’t make sense to me or to many people like me. It’s like me and my mom were raised by the same person at a different time. Yes, she was always still involved, but it’s unique. I cannot explain.

Configurations of family, as one example, have forced theorists to see that assimilation has become a stale and unachievable concept. Assimilation expects people to let go of everything and anything that has meaning to them – in order to belong to ‘mainstream’ society. This does not work for separated or multigenerational families and many others. However, to some degree, these expectations remain. Immigrants/forced migrants, inclusive of their race, racialization and assumed ‘culture,’ are often marginalized and criminalized when they do not assimilate, and even when they do. A service provider in the RCYP project who migrated as a young person from the Caribbean said, “I didn’t even know I was Black until I came here. I worked on not having an accent, changed how I dress, but I’m still a threat no matter what, even here [referring to workplace]”. Hence, for this participant, regardless of his efforts to assimilate, his Black body was perceived as a threat. Moreover, white Canadians saw his Blackness as not belonging. Bermúdez (2018) contends that the ways helping professions work with immigrants/forced migrants echo unresolved historical violence that no amount of anti-oppressive practice or cultural sensitivity can mitigate. The participants’ experiences above suggest that the historical past is forever present in the day-to-day lives of people perceived as the stranger/ ‘Other.’

Social work and the social sciences have, along with social and policy frameworks, ‘evolved’ in the theoretical and practical work done within the social work encounter. This evolution is aligned with the goals of multiculturalism and liberalism, ‘respect for difference,’ by visually adding representation while structural change is slow to occur. For example, the Canadian Association of Social Workers and other organizations celebrate diversity and inclusion and encourage engagement with the multicultural tapestry of Canada’s mosaic. Supporting Caribbean Week or Latin American Heritage Month are efforts to promote the ideologies of multiculturalism and equality and show regard for the contributions made – those of the Other. Certain foods are celebrated, and movies and activities are planned to support local businesses or a local speaker. Some organizations will honour Indigenous practices such as smudging or a Round Dance. While promotion and engagement with such activities are well-meaning and can serve to aid in expanding cultural learning, we cannot overlook that these opportunities to do so are typically only allowed within a specific time or place.

As demonstrated in previous examples throughout the text, while cultural foods may be accepted and celebrated during a community event, many immigrants/forced migrants often experience discrimination when bringing these same foods into their respective workplaces. Encouraging people to learn and engage in the ethnic to show support for cultures also places them outside the norm. Difference is devalued. However, this is not the case when the dominant identity shows interest or engages. One such example is appropriating the cultural day of “El Dia de los Muertos” (Day of the Dead – celebrated in Mexico, and many of the countries of Central and South America), by buying and wearing sugar skulls and other associated dress. This practice, valued for its colourful aesthetic, can erase history and connections when taken up as an aesthetic. Combined with that, people from countries across Central and South America have received a lukewarm reception in Canada and, at times, outright hostile treatment due to their association with gangs and narco-trafficking (Carranza et al. 2021).

The Western Gaze 

What often creates a holding pattern for social work is found in the standpoints, language and theoretical frameworks of the Western gaze. Whiteness is an invisible standpoint from which the Western gaze originates. Lee and Bhuyan (2021) argue that the Western gaze is that of the dominant, based on Eurocentric standards of what matters and what has meaning and value to society. The Western gaze was created during colonialism, and coloniality has expanded it to become common sense, structuring the colonial grid (Carranza, 2016; Lee and Bhuyan, 2021). This standpoint promotes Eurocentric ways of thinking, allowing the production of norms to remain unrecognized and invisible. The white body is heteronormative, unmarked by race and not labelled with a disability. It is foreign in that it is not Indigenous – but not a stranger. The Western gaze informs “common sense”, that dictates responses, how we act and engage with one another, and normalizes behaviors. The increase in the numbers of culturally, ethnicity and racially diverse immigrants from non-European countries has significantly affected public policy and discourse in Canada.

Whiteness operates under an assumed universality – that supports the idea that social work can be helpful to everyone. Along with the notion of universality is generalist practice. Generalist practice for social work means having one broad base of knowledge and skills and being flexible to work with many populations. Universality and generalist practice see social workers as ready to be employed in immigration and associated elements of resettlement, medical, child protection, and community work. Universality also indicates that social work can and should work with everyone. Who can embody the universal acts as a gatekeeper to who and how people can belong. Gatekeeping via labels of ‘deserving’ and ‘not deserving’ delegitimizes immigrant/forced migrant experiences and knowledge (Duhaney & El-Lahib, 2021). El-Lahib (2020) challenges how social work supports gatekeeping and surveillance to propel colonial, racist and ableist agendas. Normalizing the embedded practices is what dissolves the state’s accountability. The agenda of assimilation happens in nuanced ways depending on placement on the colonial grid – one such example is in hiring practices, the requirement of being able to lift 10lbs -20lbs has roots in marginalizing those with disabilities. This requirement, normalized in hiring practices, allows for ‘legal’ discriminatory practices. Removal of equality and upholding multiculturalism in terms of immigrants/forced migrants is normalized in a range of ways, from asking for citizenship status to denying previous experience and education under the requirement for ‘Canadian experience’ (Jantz, 2015; Sakamoto et al., 2019). These practices can be subtle or bold but serve to support discrimination in such a way that it is practiced in the day-to-day, thus reinforcing a specific identity that belongs.

Interrogating and resisting these day-to-day practices begins with language (Duhaney & El-Lahib, 2021). Examining language also shows that discourse is key in maintaining who can never belong. Part of ongoing coloniality is imposing a range of definitions of identity and applications of stereotypes. Labels and identities are limiting and constructed in opposition to whiteness, often acting as boundaries around the limits of the Other. In Canada, Jantz (2015) argues that the language of migration, both in policy and in the everyday, ensures that some identities are permanently securitized. In the “age of terror”, Jeyapal (2019) notes that post-9/11, this language and discourse fuels moral panic and fear of immigration to maintain the stranger, thus supporting discrimination. One of the consequences is a significant increase in racism towards people perceived as from the Middle East, as well as an increasing magnitude of religious discrimination since 9/11. Consequently, these processes continue to obstruct immigrant/forced migrants’ capacity to access social resources and opportunities in Canada (Yan & Chan, 2011).

Today, those who are ‘deserving,’ ‘welcome,’ and who can access services are those who show promise of upward mobility and economic contribution (Jeyapal, 2019). To limit access to social services and assistance, bills are introduced, i.e., Bill C-43, as well as the enforcement of massive securitization of borders via mandatory detention – while anti-immigration sentiments are growing. Vilifying other countries as ‘backwards’ amplifies the pressure to assimilate, for the individual and for social work to conform. Recently, the 45^th President of the United States spent his term in office limiting migration from countries he referred to as “shitholes” (Carranza, 2020; New York Times, 2018). Growing fears of invasion and resource drains amidst a neo-liberal retrenchment have increased the surveillance mechanisms within social work and reliance on narratives of ‘deserving’ to administer help. Social work, too, is increasingly being surveilled amidst ongoing cutbacks and reductions in services, creating greater controls and more motoring to ensure people are meeting the criteria, engaging in required programming and regulating practices (Jeyapal, 2019). There is resistance and calls for new ways of working and moving towards social justice. Much of this resistance work has come from inside, on the ground and the scholarship of Black and Indigenous people, including those across the globe and those that have been racialized and minoritized.

Unpacking Whiteness 

Social workers most often work within agencies and healthcare facilities sanctioned by government policies, which dictate funding and professionals’ standards of care (Sakamoto et al., 2018). While some social workers are engaged in community-orientated settings, as professionals, the standard of care is expected to be maintained.

A key question here is, can this reputation be renegotiated and deconstructed?

Social work literature engages with two major themes in whiteness studies: how whiteness produces unearned race privilege and how whiteness remains invisible from a sociocultural perspective for most white people (Lee & Bhuyan, 2021). Interdisciplinary scholarship sees whiteness as the dominant yet highly ‘invisible’ way of structuring practice and theory (Nylund, 2006). Attention to whiteness and associated privilege in social work ranges from an emphasis on visibilizing racial identity (Pewewardy 2007) to discussions of racial identity with service users as a means to foster a more integrated sense of self of the clients (Blitz 2006). Naming privilege, mapping the ways it has structured one’s life and professional trajectory, has also been popularized – but students and those in the helping professions have been left with a sense of – now what? Reflexivity was once sold for those working from the dominant space to critically engage with their own subject positions. Hesse-Biber (2014) suggested that this analytic ‘tool’ can apply to everyone. For example, those who were born in Canada can learn to understand their own worldview through their citizenship. In their analysis, practitioners, researchers and helpers could discover their own biases, mitigate them and engage with people to the best of their ability. An important note here is that this is a developmental process, which requires not only an intellectual commitment but a process of engagement with all the senses. The onus is on the professional and not on the immigrant/forced migrant to ‘teach’ the helpers.

Responding to Whiteness

Picking up on the discussion in What is Cross-Cultural Across from?, Cultural competency emerged in the U.S. in the 1980s and was intended to address diversity and inequality. Culture at the time, was attributed to language, geography, ethnicity and race as the same identifiers (Kirmayer, 2012). Theoretically, cultural competency begins with the notion that one’s mental health and wellness and help-seeking behaviours are rooted in culture (Kirmayer, 2012). Culture is a key driver not only in how mental health is experienced or expressed but also in how therapeutic relationships are forged and upheld. As a practice, it considers the differences between the social worker/therapist/helper and the person seeking services in social position and power. The space of the social work encounter in cultural competency is marked by differences in cultural knowledge and identity, language, religion and other aspects of cultural identity (Kirmayer, 2012). Azzopardi and McNeill (2016) define cultural competency as:

    It is understood as an ongoing process whereby one gains awareness of and appreciation for cultural diversity and an ability to work sensitively, respectfully, and proficiently with those from diverse backgrounds (p. 3).

In both theory and practice, the difference is attributed to the person seeking help – the stranger. Competence signifies a measure of mastery based on scientific knowledge and professionalization of skills (Carracio et al. 2002). The knowledge and ability to do things well is the basis of a professional identity, capacity and in social work – the ‘toolkit’. Culture in this approach becomes fixed, rooted and inherent to the individual. An interrelated set of practices based on geographies, ethnicity and race now shapes the presenting issue and becomes one of the most important elements for the practitioner to navigate. Culture can then be known enough for the social worker to perform their work (Carpenter, Schwallie and Longhofer, 2007). Competency indicates that the social worker can know, based on their universal knowledge and applicability of evidence-informed skills (Kirmayer, 2012). It further implies that the clinician or social worker is of the dominant culture, thus erasing identity (Sakamoto, 2007).

Lee and Byuhan (2020) speak to the ideological split in clinical social work on cultural competency and anti-oppressive practice. Cultural competency emphasizes culturally responsible and sensitive practice in each setting but does not address the structural roots of oppression. It has, at its base, the impetus to learn about histories, traits and knowledge among culturally similar groups (Azzopardi and McNeill, 2016). In early iterations of the practice, culture was to be celebrated and valued for difference – supporting multicultural societies. Despite the growth in frameworks for practicing from a culturally competent stance, there is little agreement in academia and in the field on how this approach can work (Azzopardi and McNeill, 2016). This can lead to individualizing and pathologizing trauma by removing the political elements of experiences (Carranza et al., forthcoming). This plays out in practice, as one white-identified worker commented on immigrants/forced migrant mental health:

I think in particular for immigrant families you have to keep the cultural piece, at the forefront and so, understanding that, you know, in somebody’s village or somebody’s city the way their family is completely normal so you can’t fault them in any way for doing that, because, you know, the expectations we have here are normalized, so it’s the same, right? So appreciating that, and look, and identifying the family they’re doing the best that they can.

Drawing our attention to the language used, we see the imagery of a village and the ‘culture piece’ with no specifications on what the means for the family or social worker. Institutional racism is removed from the theory ignoring the impacts on social relations and processes (Lee & Bhuyan, 2020). The many iterations of cultural competency have not resolved the inability to incorporate macro-systemic factors.  The social work encounter does not just cross difference by necessity, it attempts to manage and contain it. Cultural competency and adjacent models have evolved to include the shifting nature of culture and the structural elements of marginalization (Azzopardi and McNeill, 2016). The models of cultural consciousness proposed by Azzopardi and McNeill incorporate (a) evidence-based knowledge, (b) conceptual framework for practice, (c) intervention strategies, and (d) critical self-awareness (p. 11). Continuing to base work on medical models and evidence-based knowledge maintains the roots of knowledge in positivism. Models of cultural humility or cultural consciousness center the lived experience of those seeking services, ascribing them ‘experts’ in their own lives and moving away from privileging Global North social work knowledge.

Reflexivity, as discussed in Chapter One, is the continual analysis of our preconceptions and what influences them, including personal belief systems. Knowledge used in social work encounters is produced based on this circular analytical process. Reflexivity in working with immigrants/forced migrants allows the helper to determine how meaning, including belonging/not belonging, is created within a certain culture or society (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011).

Practicing reflexivity has been written from a neutral standpoint, not including how race, citizenship, ability or gender mediates the process. This means the goal of reflexivity, as a practice, is to be utilized by everyone. Taylor and White (2000) claim reflexivity is an important practice skill and central to working ethically in uncertain contexts and unpredictable situations. Examining oneself advances critical self-awareness by the practitioner in how they understand and engage with social problems. It assists with further realizations that assumptions about social problems and the people who experience them have ethical and practical consequences – both socially and at work. It is often seen as the cornerstone of ‘doing’ social justice (Morely, 2015). D’Cruz (2007) and colleagues reported that ‘reflective,’ ‘reflexivity,’ and ‘critical reflection’ helped practitioners to resolve uncertainty to allow them to engage with the stranger and bridge the differences that can divide people.

In reflexivity, social work theoretical positioning has attempted to navigate the ‘problem’ of working with the Stranger. On the one hand, they must remain different and separate, but there must be a way to ‘help’ to support the ongoing need for services – the helper must be able to know them. Morley (2015) defines reflexivity as:

An epistemological position that brings together the social constructionist stance of reflexivity with the emancipatory goals of critical social science. Critical reflexivity is a vial precondition for critical reflection, yet not sufficient in its own right to activate the transformative deconstruction and reconstruction processes that critical reflection enables. A critically reflexive stance is essential to further a critical social work agenda that is committed to social justice and human rights, despite the challenges presented by the contemporary, neoliberal context.

Reflexivity is sold as having the ability to challenge and disrupt privilege by de-centering voice and elevating the lived experiences of those impacted (Carranza & Grigg, 2018). Lee and Bhuyan (2020) challenge reflexivity and its capacity to remake whiteness. Some forms of reflexivity are reproductive and repetitious and reinforce existing power relations, while others may be challenging and disruptive (Fox & Allana, 2014). This process of encouraging people to reexamine their access to privilege may help to constitute these structures and contribute to inequalities by its habitual representation of them. It can also sit and stagnate to the question – now what? Unpacking whiteness but leaving it as the norm contributes to a new form of dominance. In some spaces, reflexivity is thought to acknowledge difference in an effort to subvert or move past them. It supports the goal of helping others. It produces a new identity that understands its own privilege and minimizes its power, building this space as a ‘knower’ of its centre (Jeffrey, 2004). White bodies remain at the centre of social work and social work research (Badwell, 2016) and continue to be thought to exemplify ‘objective,’ ‘goodness’ and ‘helping.’

Aligned with the social justice goals of social work, anti-oppressive practice (AOP) has gained traction in education and research. Baines (2007) indicates theoretically AOP:

… an umbrella term for a number of social justice oriented approaches to social work, including, feminist, Marxist, post-modernist, Indigenous, post-structuralist, critical constructionist, anti-colonial and anti-racist. As part of larger movements for social change, AOP is constantly refining its theory and practice to address new tensions and social problems, as well as underlying structural factors (p. 4)

Progressive social work now situates diversity, difference, and oppression at the forefront of the commitment to social justice (Brown, 2020). As a framework, AOP addresses issues of gender, race, class and multiple forms of oppression (Mullaly, 2016). Wilson and Beresford (2000) note that AOP attempts to utilize a common agenda, reduction of marginalization, to work in a non-hierarchal way to address the multiple axes of oppression while also recognizing the social processes with each form. The dismantling of structures has been the focus of AOP, with one criticism being that there is no direction to inform individual and interpersonal interactions in clinical settings (Parrott, 2009).

Brown (2020) credits the emergence of AOP as an attempt to eradicate oppression on a larger structural scale without privileging one form over another. Collective Social Work associations, including the Canadian Association of Social Workers – have included an AOP approach. Under this umbrella a range of issues are included, and interventions related to critical social work. de Montigny (2011) cautions against this, the reproduction of AOP as hegemonic, and concludes that inclusion in the Canadian Association of Social Workers accreditation standards may prevent meaningful critique. However, this approach is thought to minimize the divisiveness of issues and encourage joint advocacy and action. This framework favours broad based approaches that allow for nuance and intersections to be addressed. Baines (2011) argues that reflexivity and critical reflection are the starting points for this work. To dismantle privilege and structural oppression, mainstream or dominant social practices – social workers must start with themselves and how their perceptions have seeped into and shaped their thinking. This purposeful interrogation of ‘our’ practices and theoretical leanings will prevent reproducing hegemony or knowledge coloniality (Wilson and Beresford, 2000).

Conclusions

Stratified by race, class, ethnicity and gender, migration is frequently marked by complications, loss and often force. The context of contemporary migration is shaped by systemic exclusion, anti-immigration sentiments and globalized narratives that often mark people as ‘their culture.’ In this process of movement, there is often no home to ‘arrive’ at, as the expectations of assimilation but maintaining difference remain. This chapter has provided an overview of whiteness, its maintenance and the ways the profession has attempted to mitigate power and privilege.

Questions for further thinking

• How does the idea of “a better life” emerge in other social work contexts?
• What other major Global processes impact immigration to Canada?
• How can social workers problematize negative stereotypes and narratives of immigrants/forced migrants?