Cross Cultural Perspectives on Society - Coursework Example

Table of Content Table of Content 1 Introduction 2 2 Case Study 3 3 Intervention Approach 5 4 Legal and Ethical Dilemmas 8 5Final Reflections 9 6 Bibliography 11 1 Introduction Even within the national and local settings, social work has become an inherently multicultural and multiethnic practice. British social work researchers have, in recent years, repeatedly written about the multiethnic and multicultural nature of contemporary British social work in order to elucidate upon its practical, ethical and theoretical implications (Walker, 2001; Scourfield, 2002; Bisman, 2004). From the practical point of view, the stated development has rendered social work even more complex and complicated than it previously was, if only because practitioners and clients no longer speak the same language nor do they share similar/comparable cultural references and worldviews (Hawkins, Fook and Ryan, 2001). From an ethical perspective, multiculturalism has made negotiations through the ethical minefields of social work all the more treacherous. Suffice to say, as Bisman (2004) points out, the contemporary British social worker can no longer be guided by the ethical guidelines which inform professional British social work but needs to adopt a more universal, a-cultural ethical approach which acknowledges and respects the ethnic/cultural ethics of clients. From the theoretical perspective, this means that not only is a more multicultural professional ethics guideline required but that interventions strategies which address the challenges posed by the increasingly cross-cultural nature of the practice need to be developed (Walker, 2001; Scourfield, 2002). Not only has multiculturalism complicated the work of the British social worker from all of the theoretical, ethical and cultural perspectives, but contemporary social worker can find him/herself in a position wherein legal restrictions and regulations clash with professional duties and obligations. Given that since 1998 population and demographic changes across Britain were a direct result of the inflow of refugees and asylum seekers (Rees and Boden, 2006), social workers often find themselves in a situation wherein both their professional ethics and training dictate the imperatives of their extending help to members of this group while the law effectively constrains their ability to do so. In other words, considering that likelihood of the British social worker’s having, not only to counsel and help an ethnically diverse clientele but both refugees and asylum seekers as well, the chances of coming into contact with illegal immigrants who, despite their status are in dire need of help, are high. As I discovered through personal professional experience, in cases such as this, it is incumbent upon the social worker to negotiate between professional duties and legal strictures and try and find a way for helping the client without violating the law. Through a critical analysis of the aforementioned experience, the conflict between legal and professional obligations shall be highlighted and the intervention strategies which might negotiate between the two shall be explored. 2 Case Study AJ, a 24 year-old Afghani asylum seeker, was granted entry into the United Kingdom three years ago. His residency papers, however, were only valid for a period of two years, implying a legal obligation on his behalf either to renew his papers or leave the country. AJ, however, did neither primarily because he feared rejection and had no other place to go. This means that he is currently in the United Kingdom as an illegal alien and has been for the past year. When I met AJ, I was working in a voluntary organisation where clients were disadvantaged due to lack of resources and where neither nether social work values nor GSCC ethics were applied. On a professional level, I initially found this quite difficult to contend with for a number of reasons. In the first place, many of the clients had extreme difficulties in both understanding an expressing themselves in English and as the majority were non-native speakers, communication was quite problematic. In the second place, the absence of professional guidelines was burdensome as it meant that the individual volunteer social workers had to, in the first and last, rely on their own judgements and, in general, take their cues from their clients. After a while, however, I adapted myself to the stated constraints. AJ first came to me when I was volunteering at the organisation. Communication between us was extremely difficult but through patience and continued encouragement, I was eventually able to make sense of his story. As I learnt, he had lost his job at the Indian Cash and Carry where he had been employed because his residency papers had expired. Following the loss of his job and the eventual loss of his living accommodations due to his inability to pay rent, a friend had accommodated him for a period. Eventually, however, his friend had asked him to leave as, considering that AJ relied on him for both food and shelter, the financial burden was more than he could tolerate. With nowhere to go and no money to feed himself, AJ went to the Foyer. When I met AJ at the Foyer he was jobless, homeless and had very little prospects due to his illegal status. He wanted my help in finding both a night shelter and a job until such time as he resolved his immigration problem. From the perspective of a social work professional and practitioner, there were quite a number of methods for helping one in AJ’s situation, whether through referring them to an overnight hostel or in facilitating access to job seeker allowance or income support. The obstacle, however, and an insurmountable one at that, was that AJ was an illegal immigrant and, as such could not benefit from any of the stated. In fact, as he had no valid identification papers, or legal documentations, he could not even gain entry into an overnight hostel. As a social worker my professional inclinations were to help AJ but, given the legal complexities of his situation, the law stood as an obstacle to the provision of any constructive help. Operating within the limited parameters of the law, therefore, all I could do was advise AJ to go to the citizen’s advise bureau or to a law officer and renew his home office papers so that he would be eligible for the mentioned services. At the same time, I referred him to a day care centre for the homeless (NOAH) where he would be offered a regular free meal. Initially, AJ had problems with this since, as a Moslem, he is only allowed to eat Hala (kosher) food. As he finally told me, however, given his penniless state and the fact that he had no other access to food he had no choice but to violate his religion’s dietary laws. 3 Intervention Approach Customarily, a social worker would approach individual cases through a consideration of the subject’s cultural background. As Beresford and Croft (2004) explain, within the context of a multicultural and multiethnic practice wherein services users and practitioners may emanate from different ethno-cultural and religious backgrounds, the practitioner need approach the service user from within the matrix of his own cultural framework. In other words, the practitioner needs to transcend the cultural barriers which may exist between him/her and the service user by trying to understand the latter’s culture in order to better approach him/her from an angle which resonates with him/her, as opposed to one which alienates (Beresford and Croft, 2004). Agreeing, Banks (1998) adds that the adoption of a multicultural approach, requiring that the social worker acquire an understanding of the case’s culture and beliefs, should be regarded as part of the profession’s ethical precepts since, only through such an approach can the practitioner and service user work together towards a solution (Banks, 1998). The design of an effective intervention approach would, thus, entail the practitioner’s working from within the service receiver’s culture. Insofar as AJ is concerned this implies that I, as the practitioner, should acquire a working knowledge of Islam, pending observation on the extent to which it influences the named receiver’s decisions and thought process and of the culture of homelessness itself. Going beyond this, Cambridge and Williams (2004) insist that insofar as the provision of services to asylum seekers and refugees is concerned, it is further incumbent upon the social worker in question to understand the culture of forced exile from one’s own country. Considering that it entails being forced, for a wide array f reasons, to leave behind all that is familiar to one , they contend that the very act itself leaves an indelible mark on the individuals I question, implying that the condition and circumstances of forced immigration must be understood by the service provider in order that he/she may effectively communicate with the service receiver and motivate his/her cooperation and collaboration (Cambridge and Williams, 2004). On the basis of the above, therefore, apart from gaining a working knowledge of Islamic culture and values, I would have attempted to research the mindset of refugees and asylum seekers. In other words, I would have undertaken the research requisite for me to be able to communicate a sense of sympathy and understanding to AJ as a means of gaining his trust. In addition to the stated, the approach I would have selected would have been, undoubtedly, the cross-cultural and the anti-oppressive approaches. The selection f the cross-cultural approach is, given the nature of the case, self-explanatory. As noted by numerous social work practitioners and scholars, within the context of an increasingly multicultural society, it is imperative that the social worker divorce him/herself from his/her own cultural locus and adopt a liberal, a-cultural approach such as would allow him/her to communicate with the service receiver on his/her own level and through language which speaks to his/her own vales so as to promote understanding (Mokuau, 1991; Dwivedi, 1996). The implication here is that I would have spoken to AJ in terms which correlated to his values (as opposed to advising him to go to NOAH, entailing the violation of his religion’s dietary laws), as a first step towards bringing him to a closer understanding of his present society’s dominant culture. As regards the anti-oppressive approach, I would have selected it because, as noted by Dominelli (1996) it is fundamentally based on the facilitation of cooperation between service receiver and provider simply because it is predicated on equality. That is, equality between the gender, the races, the religions, the ethnicities and the cultures. It implies the participation of service receivers in the solution and does not hold them as passive recipients thereof (Dominelli, 19960). To the extent that the stated would have facilitated, not only the provision of accurately targeted services to AJ but would have given him all of the recognition, self-respect and sense of inclusion required for the inciting of his active cooperation, it would have been an ideal intervention approach vis-à-vis AJ. 4 Legal and Ethical Dilemmas The fact of the matter, however, is that there was no opportunity for me to extend the required help or, indeed, design and implement an effective intervention programme as described in the above. The reason lies in that AJ’s status as an illegal resident/alien means that service providers cannot provide him with the needed help. As Cambridge and Williams (2004) observe in their study on the provision of services to asylum seekers and refugees, the illegal status of a significant percentage of this group effectively means that they lack legal/official identity (Cambridge and Williams, 2004). To AJ and the many thousands of others like him across Britain, the ramifications of the stated are quite severely. Expressed in the simplest of terms, it means that while they may benefit from intervention strategies and even though it is very possible that the social worker find them placement in a homeless shelter, direct them in their search for employment and facilitate their access to income support, the law quite clearly prevents them from doing so for those who have no legal documentations or official identity and legal status in Britain (Cambridge and Williams, 2004). Needless to say, as a social worker whose academic training included the study of human rights legislature and principles and emphasises the societal, not just the individual, benefits of providing the homeless, the destitute and the unemployed with the relevant services/help, I felt as if abiding by the law meant the disavowal of my professional ethics. The fact that professional ethics and the law dictate the adoption of different positions on cases such as AJ’s, was a dilemma. At the end of the day, the only way I could resolve this conflict was by adhering to the law and limiting the aid I offered AJ to advice. 5 Final Reflections On final reflection, I must admit that this case led me to the conclusion that the law on refugees and asylum seekers conflicted with basic human right doctrine. Certainly, AJ did not have papers and, therefore, did not have a legal status in the country but, as a practitioner, I do not believe this to be ample justification for leaving AJ and the many others like him both homeless and jobless, not to mention absolutely destitute. Indeed, from my perspective at least, social workers should be able to provide AJ and others with, at least, referrals to homeless shelters and not be constrained in our ability to help them so that, at the end of the day, our help does not amount to very much more than advice. 6 Bibliography Banks, S. (1998) `Professional ethics in social work – what future?’ British Journal of Social Work, vol. 28, pp. 213-231. Beresford, P. and Croft, S. (2004) `Service users and practitioners reunited: The key component for social work reform.’ British Journal of Social Work, vol. 34, pp;. 53-68. Bisman, C. (2004) `Social work values: The moral core of the profession.’ British Journal of Social Work, 34, pp. 109-123. Cambridge, P. and Williams, L. (2004) `Approaches to advocacy for refugees and asylum seekers: A development case study for a local support and advice service.’ Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 97-113. Dominelli, L. (1996). `Deprofessionalising Social work: Anti-oppressive practice, competencies and postmodernism.’ British Journal of Social Work, vol. 26, pp. 153-175. Dwivedi, K. (1996) Meeting the Needs of Ethnic Minority Children. Jessica Kingsley, London. Hawkins, L., Fook, J., and Ryan, M. (2001) `Social workers’ use of the language of social justice.’ British Journal of Social Work, vol. 31, pp. 1-13. Mokuau, N. (1991) Handbook of Social Services. Greenwood Press. NY. Rees, P. and Boden, P. (2006) Estimating London’s New Migrant Population: Stage 1 – Review of the Methodology. London: Greater London Authority. Scourfield, J.B. (2002) `Reflections on gender, knowledge and values in social work.’ British Journal of Social Work, 32, pp. 1-15. Walker, S. (2001) `Tracing the contours of postmodern social work.’ British Journal of Social Work, 31, pp. 29-39. Read More