Abstract
In the volume, Disrupting Whiteness in Social Work, editors Sonia Tascón and Jim Ife make the strong argument that the profession of social work is overwhelmingly influenced by Western, white colonialist understandings of knowledge. The overall framing of the book utilizes the concept of whiteness to explicate Western knowledge as racialized; more specifically how white colonialism has violently manipulated what is considered valuable, legitimate social work knowledge. A term that arises from the editors themselves, and echoes throughout the collection, is epistemicide, originally offered by Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2014). It describes the “dominance of white Western knowledge, and the consequent devaluing and invalidation of other knowledge systems” (p. 2). The volume argues convincingly that modern-day Western social work is guilty of epistemicide, which requires active critique and disruption.
The editors frame this book around various problems. First, introduced by Tascón in Chapter 1, the framing of modernity's binary as divisive, warlike, and oppositional by the “white Western-North” and the influence of this on the profession of social work—creating separation and fragmentation (e.g., theory and practice). Second, as offered by Ife in Chapter 2, social work is dominated by the restrictive and deficient voices and worldviews of Western, white English-speaking men, as well as offering various areas where this is glaringly apparent, like individualism, history, and the non-human world. The introduction and these initial framings from the editors allow for the true aim of this volume to unfold: what social work knowledges have been considered and positioned as illegitimate and valueless by Western, white colonialist knowledge systems? This aim is further pursued by Iris Silva Brito and Goetz Ottmann, as this volume seeks to answer, “If Indigenous ways of thinking and doing have been pulverized by a colonial modernity, what traditions and wisdoms can we access and draw upon to reconstruct social work?” (p. 21).
While most of the chapters offer nuanced extensions to the initial framings of white Western colonialism and offer their own answer to questions of traditions and values, I will focus on a few notable examples: obuntu, solesolevaki, tā-vā, and guanxi (关系). In chapter 5, Tusasiirwe critiques current colonial social work practices in Uganda, offering the adoption of obuntu principles of working collectively through the case of mutual helping groups (Bataka) by older women. In chapter 7, Ravulo offers a collectivist Indigenous Fijian concept of solesolevaki—focusing on reciprocal well-being—to disrupt how we see social, and welfare needs in working with marginalized communities in Australia. In chapter 8, Mafile’o shares the Tongan tā-vā epistemology through food-sharing practices of her cake art, elevating both sensory and relational knowing as critical for a more fully human social work practice. Finally, in Chapter 10, Law offers the complex and fluid Chinese concept of guanxi (关系) through a personal and critical reflection on her Chinese Malaysian roots, heritage, and knowledge of human services.
In line with intentions to disrupt Western ways of sharing and producing knowledge, each chapter involves a unique addition of two written responses from either editors or authors of other chapters. While most of these responses seem to fall in the realm of praise and further iteration of arguments made in the chapter—often through examples from their own work and areas of expertise—there were a couple of moments of critique, differences of understanding, and expressions of wanting more. For example, in response to Chapter 11 by Alicea-Rodriguez, Tascón expresses a thirst for more from the author's introduction of decoloniality through indiscipline, work in the interstices, and in interdisciplinary space. One cannot help but wonder whether there were missed opportunities in other comments—or in the process as a whole—for moments of dialogue, conflict, and friction, as well as asking unique, nuanced, and challenging questions rarely found in edited volumes. Another unique feature of this volume is a final chapter on decolonizing social work vocabulary complete with 42 terms, raising questions and alerting readers to “potential white bias in conventional social work vocabulary” (p. 184).
While this volume successfully accomplishes its stated aim of sharing social knowledges which have been positioned as illegitimate and inferior in modern-day social work, some questions remain regarding the processes and ways this volume might inform the reconstruction of social work, as these Indigenous knowledges inevitably hold value far beyond their originating contexts. In Chapter 11, Alicea-Rodriguez critiques the proliferation and indiscriminate use of ‘evidence-based practices’ as one-size-fits-all models stating, “It is an act of violence to apply the practices and models without consideration for the history and context of the participants who interact in this professional exercise” (p. 175). Similar considerations must be made when introducing Indigenous knowledges for the purposes of decoloniality and disrupting whiteness. As stated by Gatwiri in Chapter 4, these knowledges are not “tools of social work,” they are ways of life. These ways of life have existed before, and continue to persist despite white supremacist Western imperialism, colonialism, and capitalism. There are many examples of Western universities and social work programs misappropriating and commodifying these Indigenous knowledges and practices as “tools of social work,” representing further hegemony and colonialism (e.g., ideas of self-care and mutual aid).
As someone being actively and formally trained inside of an “Ivy League” institution in the Global North, built on wealth accumulated from the labor of enslaved peoples, on stolen Indigenous lands of Lenapehoking, I experience the knowledges offered in this book beyond adding richness to the profession of social work. I see them as shifting the ways I exist in the world—as ways to divest from systems of coloniality and whiteness. This reality leaves me with stirring questions at the end of this volume: can social work as it currently stands be restructured? If yes, what is the role of these Indigenous knowledges in the processes of restructuring social work? Where do the actions offered throughout this volume (e.g., profound thinking, cultural responsiveness, deep listening, etc.) fit in the process of disrupting systems of coloniality and whiteness, which exist in the policies, metrics, mundane processes, and infrastructures of institutions all over the globe? In what ways do these Indigenous knowledges inform collective actions shifting modernity's binary from divisive, warlike opposition to wholeness and relationality?
Finally, as is true of most edited volumes, it is impossible to truly represent all the arguments and nuances in one short review. I suggest that readers explore this volume, spending time in places of discomfort and disease, while critically reflecting on the questions that will inevitably arise—especially when they involve interrogating coloniality and whiteness.