Is indigenisation a social justice risk? Exploring indigenisation of social work in Africa through the lens of universalism versus relativism of social work ethics and values

Abstract

With the indigenisation of social work gathering momentum, the lens of universalism and relativism can highlight some critical social justice concerns. Sociocultural beliefs around human rights and gender equality, reproductive health and traditional fostering, among others, pose unprecedented dilemmas for social workers in Africa and indigenous societies globally. Furthermore, the blind pursuit of indigenisation can reinforce discriminatory and oppressive beliefs and practices. To rectify this, developing ethical decision-making screens and additional research promoting indigenous cultural competency within the social justice goal of social work is needed.

Introduction

There is a growing call for the indigenisation of social work practice globally, born out of the requirement to better serve the needs of indigenous people (Anucha, 2008; Ugiagbe, 2015) and the realisation of the failures of Western social work methods to do so (Ugiagbe, 2015). In Africa, indigenisation of social work involves reviewing the knowledge, theories, methods, approaches and practices imposed by the West and including local values and principles for more efficient and effective problem-solving (Anucha, 2008).

The value of the indigenisation of social work in Africa cannot be overemphasised; however, as Zhang and Huang (2008) caution, social workers risk reinforcing structures supporting discrimination, inequality, oppression and other injustices when they uncritically follow indigenous sociocultural beliefs. Universalism versus cultural relativism offers a platform to consider the various ethical dilemmas in the indigenisation of social work in Africa.

Social workers in Africa and some indigenous communities may be torn between adhering to social work ethics and values in their totality (universalism) and selectively applying them within existing indigenous cultural beliefs, norms and laws (relativism). Across this divide, ethics and values, a standard unifying feature of the social work profession (Healy, 2007), may become more divisive than unifying. In this brief piece, I will draw from arguments on universalism and relativism to explore critical social justice issues that may be impacted by indigenising social work in Africa.

Universalism versus relativism argument in social work

Dolgoff et al. (2005) posited that there are two competing schools of thought in the space of ethics: deontological, which ‘stresses the importance of fixed moral rules’, arguing that ‘an action is inherently right or wrong, that ethical rules are universal’ (p. 43), and teleological, which posits that ethics are dependent on ‘the context in which they are made or on the consequences that result’ (p. 42).

These two schools of thought underscore the debate on the universality of social work values and ethics, with universalists arguing that every human has the same rights, which supersede cultural beliefs, and relativists postulating that culture is the single reference of what is considered ethical, and morals are culturally specific (Gray, 2005). Social workers in Africa and many indigenous societies encounter these dilemmas when adapting social work principles in their practice within their cultural contexts. Most professional social work bodies in Africa (i.e. Ghana Association of Social Workers, Kenya National Association of Social Workers and Nigerian Association of Social Workers, among others) have not established procedures for adapting social work principles and ethics into different African cultural contexts. This puts the burden of decision-making on frontline practitioners, leading to varying and inconsistent practices concerning gender equality and ethnic, religious and sexual minorities (George and Ekoh, 2020; Omozusi, 2021). Thus, social workers practising from a cultural relativist lens may uphold cultures that oppress and discriminate against women, older people, people living with disabilities, and sexual, ethnic and religious minorities. At the same time, universalists may negate the importance of African cultures, such as communal living and Ubuntu, in their bid to universally apply social work principles and ethics. Some of the critical social justice issues concerning indigenisation will be discussed through the lens of universalism and relativism below.

Key social justice issues in the discourse of indigenisation

Anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory practice

An anti-discriminatory and oppressive practice, a cornerstone of social work practice, guarantees human rights for minority groups. Social workers have the ethical mandate of preventing and eliminating discrimination and oppression against people based on ethnicity, religion, race, nationality, or mental and physical disabilities, as reflected in the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW)/International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) (2004) policy documents.

This mandate can be a source of conflict for African and social workers worldwide within cultures promoting discrimination. For instance, although South Africa became the first country to abolish discrimination based on sexual orientation (Jacques, 2013), many African countries have draconian laws against sexual minorities, with the argument that sexual minorities are a Western import and against African cultures (George and Ekoh, 2020; Jacques, 2013). The Zimbabwean government overtly encourages discrimination against sexual minorities, and the Nigerian government has a punishment of 14 years’ jail term for anyone caught in a same-sex act and 5 years’ jail term for allies and advocates (George and Ekoh, 2020). African social workers who uphold the core principles of the profession and challenge cultures and policies that promote oppression and discrimination are often viewed as ‘unAfrican’. In the face of this dilemma, many have chosen to remain on the fence, avoiding any discourse relating to sexual minorities. This may be viewed as social workers de facto sustaining the discriminatory and oppressive practices.

Human rights and gender equality

Social workers have an ethical responsibility to advocate for human rights. Indeed, principles of human rights (United Nations [UN], 1994) guide the theories, values, ethics and practice of social work. However, many African cultural beliefs contradict human rights, and social workers advancing human rights may face harm. Also, indigenising social work in Africa may reinforce some of these oppressive cultural beliefs, such as gender roles that subjugate women.

The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has been ratified by 175 countries, including many African countries (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2004). However, 24 nations, primarily African and indigenous societies, disagree with Article 16, which guarantees marriage and family life equality. While gender equality is supported in public leadership, gender equality at the family level is deemed a Western ploy to destroy the fabric of African families (Mutua, 2000).

Other issues of contention about women’s rights in Africa include inheritance, land ownership, and early and forced marriages (Healy, 2007), and some African cultures dictate how a woman should dress, where and whom to visit, and their conduct in public and private spaces. Domestic violence and denied rights to consensual sex in marriage are permitted in some cultures (Omozusi, 2021) (i.e. Section 55(1)(d) of the Penal Code of Northern Nigeria allows correctional assault on women by their husbands). Some African scholars have challenged the CEDAW, with Ekoh and Agbawodikeizu (2022) discovering that African social work scholars believe gender equality at home is a Trojan horse sent to change African civilisation. This brings about a conflict between the social work position on human rights and cultural traditions in areas of domestic violence, economic dependency and freedom, and women’s quality of life.

Women’s reproductive rights

While the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade by the US Supreme Court drew much criticism from civil society organisations and professional bodies, including the National Association of Social Workers (NASW, 2022), women’s right to reproductive health is a mirage in many indigenous cultures in Africa and worldwide (Guttmacher Institute, 2016). Many African countries limit abortion for religious, moral, cultural and political reasons (Guttmacher Institute, 2016), placing women’s lives at risk. In these societies and many others, social workers face conflicts between advocating for women’s rights to health and self-determination, and respecting the norm and laws of their country. On the one hand, the principle of self-determination and the right to reproductive health for women are essential for the advancement and well-being of women, and social workers have an ethical responsibility to promote this. On the other hand, a relativist social worker may feel obligated to respect indigenous contexts (laws and practices), which are primarily maintained by the moral argument that abortion is murder.

Female genital mutilation

Female genital mutilation, a custom believed to have existed in Africa and some parts of the Middle East for more than 2500 years, involves partial or complete removal of female genitalia (Mitchum, 2013) for cultural, religious and social reasons; to prepare young girls for womanhood; and to cleanse them (Oyowe, 2014). It has led to death, trauma and long-term effects, especially during pregnancy and marriage (Von Der Osten-Sacken and Uwer, 2007). While the universalist social workers’ approach to this issue is total condemnation, citing Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which posits that people should not be exposed to inhumane, cruel treatment or torture (UN, 1994), a relativist social worker, in contrast, may argue that the imposition of this article to discard centuries of indigenous culture is arrogant (Oyowe, 2014). They may also cite indigenous women’s belief that this practice is essential for the success of their marriage and as a valued social status symbol, which aesthetically looks better and attracts suitors (Mitchum, 2013).

Traditional fostering

In Western countries, foster care is a well-developed institution controlled by government mechanisms (Washington et al., 2013), whereas in Africa, the practice is informal, with relatives, extended family and friends overseeing the care of children (Isidienu, 2015). However, traditional foster care has resulted in the widespread abuse of children (Nnam-Okechukwu et al., 2020; Olaore and Drolet 2016), with proponents of physical and emotional abuse arguing that it is a culturally accepted way of training children.

Children’s welfare is within the purview of social work practice, and many societies empower social workers to enforce child protection laws (Thompson, 2011). From the universalistic view, social workers cite the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which grants children freedom from every form of violence and abuse (UN, 1989). Hence, inflicting physical or emotional pain on children violates human rights. On the other hand, culture relativists may argue that branding this practice as abuse is a simplistic view that undermines its significance in the child-rearing customs of indigenous peoples and is responsible for moral decay, inappropriate behaviour and diminishing respect from children (Fay, 2019).

Self-determination versus Ubuntu

The ethic of self-determination fundamentally prevents social workers from dictating life choices for service users and facilitates respect for service users’ worth and dignity, and decision-making ability. In Africa, the principle of Ubuntu – you are because I am – means that we are all interconnected. African scholars have argued that the emulation of a Western individualistic lifestyle is a threat to African societies and a source of many of the problems Africans face (Silvawe, 1995), leading the IFSW/IASSW (2004) to propose a moderately relative approach; the right to self-determination should be to the extent that it does not affect the rights of others.

Furthermore, the culture of social stratification and traditional authority relationships divides social workers in Africa between those who uphold the principle of individualisation/self-determination and those with a sense of responsibility for their clients’ choices, leading to some social workers being directive in their counselling (Silvawe, 1995). Silvawe (1995) further argued that self-determination is inappropriate for Africa because of Africa’s sense of communalism, recommending group determination over self-determination.

Conclusion and recommendations

Complete indigenisation and respecting human rights are challenging in the African context, as shown through the six examples of universalism and relativism dilemmas. To address this, Dolgoff et al. (2005) proposed the use of an ethical screen consisting of a hierarchy of considerations in making ethical decisions: protection of life, equality and inequality, autonomy and freedom, least harm, quality of life, privacy and confidentiality, and truthfulness and full disclosure. Healy (2007) and Lenzerini (2016) argue for a different tactic – a dialogical approach to address the extreme polarisation of these theories. This approach entails respecting indigenous cultures and practices that do not constitute harm and implementing human rights to protect individuals from harm. This approach also calls for humility in having conversations about culture with the recognition that culture is dynamic; hence, culture can be changed or moulded to reflect contemporary human rights issues and African beliefs (Gray, 2005).

Furthermore, the complexity of multicultural contexts calls for more research on ethics and values in social work, focusing on how different indigenous cultures try to reshape their practice of social work to mirror their peculiar societies, devoid of imperialist and colonial hand-me-downs, and with sound ethical foundations. This will help social workers in different cultures develop better ethical decision-making measures. Bodies of social work in African countries should also start developing codes of ethics that are culture-sensitive and specialised ethical screens for decision-making and cultural competency. The dynamism of culture as a concept that changes over time should be reflected so that African and indigenous social workers do not rigidly hold onto cultural beliefs that encourage oppression and discrimination, as this will defeat the social justice mission of social work.