Chapter Seven: Helpers as Knowers

Abstract: As helpers, we must examine our stories and those we work with and ask what certain stories “do”? What are the taken-for-granted assumptions that underlie the truth claims in our stories? Thinking about the truths in us and our stories, how/why we tell them, challenges the notion that there is one truth. One truth often means that some stories are considered more truthful, valued and accepted. These questions move us away from thinking that the well-worn pathway of social work is natural and that certain bodies are more apt to help.

Key Concepts: Deserving, identity, margins, centre and knowledge

Introduction

The social work encounter or the imagined site of helping is predicated on several factors, including the helper’s knowledge, skills and capacity. The helper/helpee relationship is time-limited, purpose-driven and regulated via organizations and professional bodies (e.g. The Canadian Association of Social Workers). This helping encounter exists within the history of social work and the involvement in migration. Helpers assist in both navigating belonging and maintaining the borders of exclusion. Historical constructions of the deserving immigrants/forced migrants have been imagined as needing rescue and protection and wanting to be repaired. Embedded in perceptions of deserving is the ability to Canadianize, including leaving culture and language behind upon arrival. Historically, Helping professions have promoted positive acculturation, resettlement and maintaining Canadian ways as the ideal (Badwall, 2015). Tropes of “working hard” and “contributing to the fabric of Canada” are coded as proper assimilation and are projected onto those who deserve to come to Canada. Even those perceived as deserving experience scrutiny and investigation for elements of the stranger. The stranger has been met with fear and disdain as they threaten the nation’s homogeneity (Thobani, 2007). Resistance to strangeness is cloaked under the claim of becoming a drain to the social support systems, including housing and health, stealing, and invasion. Opposingly, agency and resiliency are valued as an extension of “rising up” and overcoming adversity (i.e., leaving one’s country of origin and making a life in Canada). As the meaning of helping suggests, social workers, therapists, counsellors and other adjacent professions are positioned to assist immigrants/forced migrants in their Canadianization process.

The process of resettlement intersects with the categorizations of difference along the lines of the colonial grid, including age (Carranza & Grigg, 2022), gender (Carranza, 2017), disabilities (El-Lahib, 2015), and the racialization process of becoming a Canadian. Access to civility dictates who has the right to be a citizen and who is seen as multicultural vs. the stranger (Razack, 2002; Thobani, 2007). Linked to structural imperatives – such as the racialization and feminization of labour, immigrants/forced migrants are required to overcome any obstacles, and help is provided to those who show the most promise and benefit to Canada (Fudge, 2021). Resettlement, idealized as ‘overcoming,’ is code for the struggle of coming from the Global South to the North and delinks experiences from larger systemic structures such as coloniality and globalization. It also invisibilizes capitalist advancement in how the Global North advances its interests by exploiting countries in the Global South – the destruction Canada creates mining, i.e., the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Peru, the U. S’s vested interests in Central America or the UK’s ongoing coloniality in Anguilla. When the journey stops upon arrival, problems are considered “there.” This demarcation draws in the questions:

• How is the helping encounter experienced by those who may not be represented “here”?
• How is the symbolism of “overcoming” coded in daily helping practices?

The journey of migration is constantly in motion. Resettlement can last a lifetime.

Relationships predicated on the “knower” are like the rescuer, hero or ‘rising up’ narratives. These types of relationships are based on ideologies of modernity and assume progress, mobility, and achievement are possible – especially in this cultural mosaic of Canada. This narrative skews the reality that migration is a lived process, and many times, people experience trauma in their country of origin during their journey to and in Canada. The promise(s) of multiculturalism gives the illusion that upon arrival – safety is achieved, life is now ‘better,’ and difference will be respected.  The grief for connections, family in the country of origin, and the ways of being before migration is often dismissed and/or invalidated, assuming that people will now have a ‘better life,’ they are lucky to have been chosen or to have been accepted to resettle in CanadaCarranza & Grigg, 2022). As discussed in Acculturation as a Family Process, this grief is fluid, ambiguous, and unfinished.

Migration, in many ways, is trauma/traumatic and exists in the material conditions of people’s lives. For example, experiencing racism in healthcare contributes to a decline in well-being. In the case of racialized immigrants/forced migrants, trauma can be exacerbated by living amidst those who benefit from ongoing coloniality, racism and marginalization (Carranza, 2007a, 2007b; Pottie et al., 2005; Turner & Simmons, 2006). However, these correlations and outcomes are often misunderstood and deemed barriers to accessing services. There is no shortage of literature discussing barriers to seeking help (Martínez et al., 2020), lack of access (Grupp, 2019) and other structural barriers disguised as individual immigrant/forced migrant problems.

Question: What are some examples of barriers that are actually structural or masking coloniality?

Loss of belonging is structural. Being locked out of belonging materializes in, but is not limited to, education, work, health, and relationships. One example is the push to volunteer to gain Canadian experience, but credentials will not be recognized. Starting over with no pay to acquire skills, knowledge and connections considered valid. ‘Help’ is positioned as assistance in resettlement, job training, and language learning, all the tasks of “catching up.” Yet, there is an acknowledgment that current practice interventions are falling short. Helpers are not required to include social justice or macro-level work; cultural competency is often removed from the history of coloniality. Help enforces colonial norms of Canada – individualism over community, privileging of the nuclear family and getting ahead. One of the ‘hallmarks’ of social work is to work with the person in their environment (Colby & Dziegielewski, 2004), yet various modalities do not include the family, community and transnational relationships.

One assumption taken for granted is that helpers know how things are done: how to get a job, learn the language, or access education. The second is around occupying a historical White space as someone who is differently situated on the colonial grid. In terms of race, when the helper does not fit this role, their knowledge is challenged, they are questioned, and they experience racism (Badwall, 2015).

The question is, who is seen as someone who ‘knows’?

CASE:

A service user requesting services complaint to the director that he/she had been assigned a ‘coloured’ social worker and that he would like to be transferred to a ‘Canadian social worker’. The social worker in question was the fourth generation born in Canada, held an MSW and had 12 years of practice experience. When this was disclosed to the service user, she/he responded that he/she preferred to receive help from a ‘real Canadian social worker.’ The service user was transferred to a white Canadian social worker who had recently graduated with her BSW.

Helping as the Colonial Mirror

The history of helping in migration and resettlement has narrated, animated, and analyzed how Canada has constructed its nationhood as saviour within the work of multiculturalism. In this praxis – the Other, the stranger, has been a pivotal construct to maintain whiteness through the appearance of purity, civility, citizenship, belonging and goodness. Social work has positioned itself as ‘eclectic’ with many intervention models to recognize diversity but maintains its knowing stance. However, the deeply embedded desire to manage the strangeness of the stranger remains structurally enforced (Razack, 1998). Social work is dependent on differences and works towards assimilation. Popular social work texts, such as Social Work: The People’s Profession (Colby & Dziegielewski, 2004) to a more recent example, Introduction to Social Work in Canada: Histories, Contexts and Practices (Denov et al., 2015), identify the first step in diversity work is critical reflexivity, with identifying social location. The next step is determining a holistic intervention encompassing the intersections of ‘client’ identities. Simply put, social work education claims that understanding, recognizing, and integrating diversity into practice will move the encounter along to resolve the issues with structural advocacy work second.

Question: What does this mean in practice?

How does this show up in social work?

The ‘identity’ of social workers is changing – moving away from the naturally worn pathway of whiteness  – and opening up new ways of practice and advocacy (Ahmed, 2005; Janes, 2016). New ways have implications for the knowledge base of social work, which requires a shift in epistemologies and ontologies to engage in decolonialism. As discussed in previous chapters, representation, such as special interest topics, is not enough. Non-western knowledge is not valued in mainstream social work and helping; at best, these are named “out-of-the-box.” Exclusion extends beyond a lack of foreign credential recognition to how people from the Global South’s knowledge is discounted as not the “way things are done around here.” Social workers operate amidst a myriad of neoliberal technologies of standardization to enhance productivity and drive down costs (Baines, 2010). When neoliberalism structures a workplace, managerialism often intentionally stifles innovation, reinforcing how things have always been done and cementing a pre-established valued knowledge base. While claims that innovation is at the heart of helping, colonial conditioning is still ever-present and shapes whose ideas will be valued (Whebi et al., 2015). Unpacking value has meant assessing what is in the best interest of service users under the guise of quality assurance and standardization. 

Therapeutic spaces often mirror colonial relations. Whiteness and privilege remain in the encounter – even when the social worker is not white. A “knower” hails from a pre-existing assumption that the dominant can and has the right to this knowledge of immigrants/forced migrants—a juxtaposition for ideologies driving social work boundaries and ethics. In the past, therapeutic spaces have been visibly white, and over time, this whiteness has been embedded in these relations. One example is objectivity, neutrality and boundaries. Each of these examples can be seen as being disconnected and not “too close” to an issue. As faces change, we remain beholden to history via evidence-informed and best practices. When a person is the standard that belongs as the helper, their ways of knowing and being can challenge and push back – not all identities are afforded this power. These standards are presented as neutral to allow ‘anyone’ to fill the social work role. However, when people are not visibly “from here,” how can they assist someone else in aligning themselves with Canadian ways? In these types of questions, the power relations of the social work encounter are revealed. For example, the idea that power is unidirectional or is structured as over ‘clients.’ While this has been problematized in recent years to renegotiate ‘power with,’ the inescapable original configuration of helper/needs help remains (Janes, 2016). Coloniality of Power (Quijano, 2000) indicates that this power over structure is modelled on the original colonial relationships.

Baswell (2015) suggests that one of the ways helping spaces mirror colonial relations is the scripts of whiteness, which are warmth, genuine, unconditional positive regard, and empathy (Badwell, 2015). These characteristics are not objective; they are related to the history of social work and placement on the colonial grid, including race, migration, and gender influence, and can be perceived as warm, caring, genuine, and empathic. Ultimately, these practices are coded in a particular set of behaviours – derived from notions of the history of white womanhood (Jeyapal & Bhuyan, 2017). Aligned with the social justice ideals of the profession, these coded behaviours and practice norms operate to define and govern what is ‘good’ practice (Badwall, 2015). ‘Good’ practices are presented in social work as neutral, client-focused, respectful and competent. Being ‘good’ also includes being friendly and welcoming, mirroring the image Canada portrays (Jeyapal, 2018). The result has been a hegemonic subscription to a particular identity that belongs in the encounter due to its capacity to role model a ‘good’ Canadian. Resulting in the Helper as Knower.

Colonial conditioning and the scripts of whiteness extend beyond white social workers. The ethical practice and desired characteristics that formed the hegemonic performance of helping have unevenly impacted those who do not fit the mould. Experiences of marginalization and harassment in the profession, and lower pay are two examples (Bailey, 1998; Jeyapal & Bhuyan, 2017). The performance demands change depending on one’s location on the colonial grid. For example, those with marginalized identities are ascribed less capacity for neutrality and experience accusations of being ‘too close’ to people and/or issues. Further, difference from Whiteness is often essentialized. One way this can manifest is by expecting immigrants/forced migrants to know everything about migration policy and resettlement. This is not the case with those who “look” Canadian; in this way, sanctioned ignorance is acceptable (Carranza, 2017). Practice frameworks such as cultural competency and humility act as a buffer for not knowing but are only afforded to some identities (Nylund, 2006). By way of example, one young person who migrated alone from Central America recounted how when working with a school counsellor for their immigration status– they thought they could bring all the documents to their session and would receive help. Instead, the counsellor (who was born in Canada) encouraged them to “be independent” and ask others who had been through the process how to renew their student visa and residency applications. The participant felt that the counsellor assumed that all applications were the same and that all immigrants/forced migrants knew how to navigate the system – while they did not. Yan (2010) echoed these sentiments in their research with the British Columbia Association of Social Workers, where less than 20% of respondents had received formal training on policies and resettlement, and less than half felt comfortable assisting in anything related to immigration.

The young person from Central America’s experience demonstrates how people are expected to represent or speak for their identities. These expectations extend into the workplace and assumptions of how, for example, employees who are immigrants/forced migrants are expected to ‘know’ what is happening for those engaging in services. In these ways, lived experience is valued to increase proficiency and meet service users’ needs (Bhyuan & Lee, 2015). In discussions of proximity to issues, the neutrality of whiteness is reified – white social workers rarely have their identities called into question when connecting with people. When a connection is built within boundaries (rooted in individualism), white social workers may be questioned, but not their whiteness.

Racialized workers are often judged on the scripts of whiteness, which presents a paradox – being and belonging in the profession is conditional. However, the professional status is automatically thought to place them in a privileged position in relation to the ‘client’ (Healy, 2000). Therefore, racialized and Other identities are at times believed to be helping through similar ‘cultural’ characteristics, but can be switched into defined as a hindrance – too connected and the potential for boundary transgressions. These notions reinforce the idea of helping as a one-dimensional power-over relationship (Lundy, 2004). Badwall (2015) found in their research with racialized social workers – they are ignored, gaslit, and treated with hostility when they name racism. This could be in their daily work with clients or coworkers or when they advocate for changes at the practical, theoretical and structural levels of organizations. Understanding the colonial continuities that inform the current state of practice is complex. As Ahmed (2005) indicates, pushing for social justice often requires naming practices that harm, oppress, or marginalize others, but when this naming occurs, the namer often gets cast as the problem. Nevertheless, social work continues to cause harm under the masquerade of moral superiority, helping, and goodness (Badwell, 2015). Neutrality is idealized, hailing from positivism, to not influence ‘clients’ – exercising boundaries.

The following case studies illustrate that this positioning in the helping encounter is fluid, changing, and altered by who is ‘performing.’

Case Studies

Questions to trace the colonial grid:

• How do we analyze these scenarios? What informs our lens?

In tracing a critique of multiculturalism and the history of social work, we can also ask:

• How is the context of migration and racialization examined in the encounter, which has the potential to reproduce the colonial relationship?

As you work through the following case studies, try to keep the following questions in mind:

• How is race animated in social work and the helping relationship?
• How are the colonial identity and relationships navigated by both—
• the helper and the client(s)?
• Who occupies space at the margin and at the centre?

Case One: ‘We do not see race’

Alison was a racialized social worker employed by a mainstream organization. She had been hired specifically to work with newcomers, to which she agreed. However, after a year or so, she made the request to her supervisor to diversify her caseload. After some weeks went by without a response, she approached her supervisor again, who responded that after discussing it with the organization’s directors, some ‘concerns’ had emerged. These were related to her accent, but, most of all, her ability to relate to the lived experiences of white people. “We don’t see race, you know, but our clients probably do,” her supervisor added.

Questions:

• What assumptions come to mind about Alison?
• What is informing their supervisor’s response?
• What are the possible outcomes of a ‘we don’t see race approach’?

Case Two and Three: Who’s knowledge?

Emily

Emily, a Canadian-trained social worker, was employed by a settlement organization to provide trauma counselling to newcomers. However, she faced many day-to-day challenges. One significant challenge was that, from time to time, some service users were concerned about her ‘ethnic’ background and refused to receive services from her and requested a ‘white Canadian’ social worker, even if this meant working with a cultural interpreter. The most significant reason given was that White Canadians had ‘superior’ knowledge, or they knew more than her. The second was their fear of being judged by ‘one of their own.’

Laura:

Laura is a racialized social worker, whose caseload is composed of racialized folks. She enjoyed working with diverse groups–as she found it easy to relate to their experiences, i.e., shared history of adversity and so forth. However, she faced various challenges. The most significant is related to the “you know.” Meaning, whenever she was asking inquisitive questions to get a sense of the service user’s experience, perception or meaning-making about a particular situation, more often than not, service users would respond with “you know” or “you know how it is” or “you know how things are”. When she’d press for more information, some service users would get offended or taken aback, like surprised that she wouldn’t know.

Questions:

• What processes are at play?
• How does colonial conditioning influence these processes?
• In understanding these complex processes – what is an ideal way to proceed?

Case Three: Where are you from?

While in group supervision, Janine, a racialized social worker, discussed that she was tired of her white clients always asking where she was from, and where she had received her social work credentials? How many years she’d been in Canada? Her white supervisor responded, “well, they have the right to ask questions and get to know who we are”. While a white peer responded, “Have you considered that perhaps you are too sensitive?” Janine responded, do they ask the same questions of you? A few weeks later, Janine was transferred to another supervisor. When asking about the transfer to another supervisor, she was told that “it was the agency’s procedure … to rotate people to different supervisors.” Meanwhile, she was the only one experiencing such rotation.

Questions:

• How are “rights” being operated in this scenario?
• What are Janine’s clients and supervisor’s assumptions? And what is informing these assumptions?
• What are the scripts of whiteness at play in this scenario?

Discussion

Each case study represents some deeply held beliefs in Canada and the profession. The claim to not ‘see race’ is problematic in many ways, one being that it attempts to erase the historical present of racialized social workers. It is a specific subject position to claim to ‘not see’ violence, oppression, and marginalization, which not everyone is allowed to not see/ignore. There is an attempt to minimize differences, which can be a source of comfort to some. Colonial conditioning asserts that some people must make their identities more comfortable than others – i.e. not being “too much”. In Alison’s case, there is concern that she cannot be effective with non-racialized clients and may be off-putting to them. The power dynamics in this case do not represent the common understanding of power over, as Alison is assumed not to understand these clients. The organization appears to be investing the power dynamics in favor of the status quo.

In unpacking Emily’s practice experience, she identified that positioning whiteness and the Canadian way was understood as the pathway to “fitting in.” With multiple processes at play, understanding how each is positioned on the colonial grid – one, a worker and the other seeking services can be seen as navigating the structural impetus towards assimilation pushed in immigration. It also challenges the notion that people have single identities and are made up of complexities; while some may want to work with similar people, others do not. It also speaks to how we come to ‘know’ people with the opportunity for privacy. This also undercuts the narrative of how representation can achieve equity produced by neoliberalism.

Janine is facing what can be understood as a boundary violation, but it also has some implications for ‘who belongs’ and whose knowledge is valued. In this scenario, one way of interpretation is how the service user or client assumed that they had the right to know personal information about Janine. This is often the case with the colonial migrant – often exoticized as from somewhere ‘far away’ and should be open to discussing that by virtue of being in Canadian space. The expectation is that Janine must be open to explaining her identity in a way her colleagues, who may seemingly belong, do not. The underlying claim is that strangeness can be known, and those inhabiting it must be open to explaining it in a way that is understood. Janine is encouraged to comply with this person’s request by her organization, implicitly indicating that telling people personal information related to migration is accepted. In this instance, telling people information is positioned as a condition of “good” social work.

In each of these cases, how the social worker’s knowledge was taken up in the encounter is challenged by those working with and their organizations. This challenge results from colonial conditioning. “Where are you from?” is a question with assumptions embedded and can be weaponized against those perceived as strange. Pushing back and not answering is a site of resistance. This resistance is often met with disdain from organizations. Navigating the type of scenarios faced by Emily presents another challenge. Often, it is assumed to be internalized thoughts and feelings related to racism and marginalization – which can also be true. However, an element of colonial conditioning suggests Western ways of knowing are superior.

Conclusion

Each case is full of nuance. The case studies invite new questions about how the role is constructed and maintained in education and agencies. There is also a need to discuss the idea that power is unidirectional at its roots – with the social worker/helper higher on the hierarchy. As a profession, the idea that the role and practices have power and the client is always powerless is outdated and needs to be re-examined with an understanding of coloniality and the colonial grid. In the case of social work, its pedagogy needs to examine how ideologies of diversity, cross-culture work, and other methods of ‘knowing’ have (re)produced an environment that essentializes and marginalizes racialized workers.