Different constructions of culture and ethnicity

In this thesis, I view culture and ethnicity as socially constructed phenomena. Hacking (1999) makes a distinction between social constructions and objective realities. He argues that an objective reality exists, but how we talk about and understand this reality is, however, formed in social constructions (Hacking, 1999). In other words, how we think of the world will affect how the world appears to us. Within social sciences there is not necessarily a single truth, but several ways of classifying, labeling and create meanings, thereby rendering truth a relative concept. Nevertheless, this does not make all aspects of the world relative (Hacking, 1983).

The conditions Indigenous people live under have objective truth, whereas how Indigenous people are labeled, what narratives are created, the structures of possibilities, and what knowledge is produced, are social constructions.

One classic example of how ethnicity and culture is constructed by the dominant group is

distinct from the ‘Occident’. The writing of the ‘Orient’ took place within imperial Britain, France and North America (Said, 2001). The constructed narratives and ‘thoughts’ legitimize and uphold the dominant position of the Occident. Within the Indigenous context, Smith (2012) shows how western research has constructed ‘truths’ about Indigenous people.

According to Comaroff (1987), the construction of ethnicity is a question of power. Ethnicity becomes relevant in asymmetrical relations, where one group legitimizes its power and hegemonic position over another group. In this view, ethnicity is shaped historically and influenced by economic and political processes. Comaroff (1987) claims; ‘(…) ethnicity has its origins in the asymmetric incorporation of structurally dissimilar groupings into a single political economy’ (307).

The history of colonialism provides a ‘discovering of sameness and otherness’. Similarities and differences are not the basis of cultural groups; they are socially constructed articulations of ethnic relations (Comaroff, 1987). Through the process of identifying and creating ethnic groups, similarities and difference are identified and made relevant. The dominant group formulates interconnections and distinctions towards other groups through articulations of characteristics of both ‘us’ and ‘them’. Definitional power lies within the purview of the dominant ethnic group (Comaroff, 1987). Even today, ethnic Norwegians and ethnic Euro-Americans as the dominant groups in Norway and the USA respectively, exert significant definitional power upon the cultural narratives and politics forming the living conditions of Sami and Native American people.

Bhabha (1994/2004) provides a different perspective than Comaroff and Said for analyzing colonization. He claims that postcolonial theories tend to dichotomize the world into binary constructions such as ‘us’/’them’, ‘white’/’black’, and ‘civilized’/’uncivilized’. He argues that this language is effective in perpetuating colonization because it maintains the separation of

the dominator and the dominated. Such binary construction of the world limits analytical thinking, wherein cultures different from the west are constantly compared to western hegemony.

With the theoretical concept ‘The Third Space’ Bhabha (1994/2004) proposes an alternative position where cultures negotiate. Within this theoretical framework, Bhabha sees cultures as hybrids. ‘The Third Space’ is the room in-between the dichotomy the binary structures of imperial power on the one side, and resistance from the subordinated on the other. This ‘in-between space’ provides the background for studying ongoing negotiations of cultural identities; the in-between cultural expressions.

In an Indigenous context, Dankertsen (2014) applies the theoretical perspective of ‘the in-between space’ investigating the Sami people in Norway articulating and negotiating their

‘Saminess’. Several of Dankertsen’s informants describe ‘in-between’ experiences. In her thesis, Dankertsen brings a new understanding of the relationship between the Norwegian government as the colonizer and the Sami people as the colonized, moving beyond the traditional separation of the two. The use of the theoretical framework of in-between space provides a place of agency. Dankertsen shows that investigating the in-between space contributes valuable knowledge in understanding contemporary cultural experiences.

Throughout this section, I have attempted to present different examples of constructions of culture and ethnicity. In the article ‘The epistemology of Cultural Competence’, Williams (2006) claims that epistemological perceptions of culture informs and shapes social work practice. The ontological and epistemological perspectives of social work research and practice that subsequently develop, have implications for the practical performance of the profession. I argue that a phenomenon as complex as culture, demands complexity and

3.4.2 Cross-cultural social work; culturally sensitive, culturally competent, culturally humble and contextual social work

Within the specific field of social work, there is an ongoing debate on how to integrate cross-cultural awareness into social work practice. Culturally sensitive social work, cross-culturally competent social work, culturally humble social work and contextual social work are all concepts developed with the aim of integrating cultural understanding into social work.

The concept culturally sensitive social work, calls for the social worker’s reflexivity of self and others (Band-Winterstein, 2015; Houston, 2002). The theoretical framework of cultural sensitivity is primarily concerned with the skills and attributes of social workers interacting with clients from different cultural backgrounds (Foronda, 2008). The concept of culturally competent social work is a congruent of the three components: knowledge, values and skills (T. L. Cross, Bazron, Dennis, & Isaacs, 1989; Weaver, 1999). Within the theoretical

framework of culturally competent social work, both the individual and the system are accountable for the quality of cross-cultural social work (T. L. Cross et al., 1989; Saus, 2008c). The concept of cultural humility acknowledges and counters structural inequalities and power imbalances within cross-cultural social work and requires self-reflection for a deeper awareness of power and privilege (Fisher-Borne, Cain, & Martin, 2015). Cultural humility complements cultural competence by drawing attention and reflection on the context and structural inequalities into practical social work. The concept of contextual social work provides a theoretical framework highlighting the relevance of local context for practical social work (Saus, 2008a). Social work in one local community might look very different from social work in another community. Local knowledge is important when informing and delivering social work in the local community.

In this thesis, I primarily make use of the terms cultural competence, cultural humility and contextual social work. These terms reflect upon the institutional development of

cross-cultural practices in different ways. The concept cross-cultural sensitivity is more concerned with the development of the social workers’ attributes and abilities to meet the clients on their terms (Foronda, 2008). I fully acknowledge the importance of the social worker’s ability to be culturally sensitive. However, the levels of client-social worker relations do not lie within the scope of this thesis. While investigating cultural adequacy, I am mainly interested in the practice and development of social work on an institutional level.

3.4.3 Critique of the cross-cultural concepts

Baltra-Ulloa (2013) criticizes the concept of ‘crossing cultures’ and claims that the idea of

‘crossing over’ reproduces othering. The construction of cross-cultural social work relies on the assumption that ‘crossing of cultures’ is both possible and relevant. When talking of

‘crossing over’ it implies that the social worker belongs to the cultural hegemony and ‘crosses over’ to a cultural minority group. These ideas and ways of constructing cultural social work, provide definitional power to when culture is relevant, as well as what kind of cultural competence is relevant to the social work profession (Baltra-Ulloa, 2013). Cross-cultural social work is epistemologically based in a European worldview and knowledge hegemony (Duran & Duran, 1995). The concepts cultural sensitivity, cultural competence, cultural humility and contextual social work are all developed within this framework.