A reflection on International social work, the global south, and colonial legacies.

MY contribution to human rights advocacy thus far has predominantly focused on international development programs targeted at the Asia-Pacific region. Throughout my involvement, however, my role as a social worker has challenged what I understood about neo-colonialism, decolonisation and coloniality in our modern context – and how social work can be complicit in this legacy. Through the process of this reflection, I hope to reconcile these lessons with the profession of social work, and share my insights on the humanitarian sector – particularly in relation to international development.

I was introduced to the concept of ‘solesolevaki’ whilst attending a Localising Humanitarian and Development Practice in the Pacific seminar. An Indigenous-Pacific concept, ‘solesolevaki’ is a term that emphasises the significance of reciprocal wellbeing. Solesolevaki describes one’s individual wellbeing as inextricably connected and moulded by those around them. Additionally, this idea also highlights the shared responsibility we all have in supporting the self and community, with a local view that reciprocity is often manifested across several domains related to our wellbeing and health (Mafile’o, 2017).

An underlying message of this perspective is that our individual experience pervades the way we participate, contribute and exist within the collective community. Other lessons I’ve learned from Indigenous-Pacific communities are concepts of ‘veiqaravi’ – meaning to serve – and the calling to maintain a nurturing relationship with ‘vã’ – the sacred space that lives between all domains of our individual and collective experience.

These viewpoints are underlined with the idea that our individual and collective experiences are not binary, but circular (Spretnak, 2011).

Within this context, all of us share a responsibility in ensuring that harmony within oneself and one’s community is achieved. Conflict, nonetheless, is still a part of the equation – dysfunction is not something that can be avoided. How Indigenous-Pacific communities resolve conflict, however, is guided by the need to reconcile and promote unity (Gray et al, 2013).

Reflecting on these concepts, I believe that the idea of ‘solesolevaki’ is similarly related to values of collectivism we see again and again within Indigenous Australian communities and other traditionally orientated cultures around the globe. Sadly, the synergy of such concepts has been lost within westernised and Global North perspectives, where a focus on individualism is prioritised over shifting our viewpoint to communities (Ravulo, 2018).

This does not mean that I consider Global North perspectives to exclude the significance of community, peers, and family in the practice of social work. How we design, implement and evaluate social work programs or services, however, continues to follow a more linear or formulated focus as compared to the holistic view that is rich in Indigenous knowledge and cultural practices. 

In this respect, Global North viewpoints and concepts of neo-liberalism seem to recognise responsibility as that of the individual, and that social constructs and systems function independently of the individual experience.

This is opposing to the concept of solesolevaki, which proportions responsibility back on society in ensuring its members are part of the collective, irrespective of social and welfare needs. In principle, I am arguing that collectivism (or what we understand as solesolevaki in the Indigenous-Pacific context), can effectively serve as a beneficial and pragmatic framework in social work practice, policy and research. Notwithstanding the additional benefits to teaching and learning approaches within the jurisdiction of social work training.

Furthermore, the theoretical concept of post-structuralism (Al-Natour & Mears, 2016) is also a valuable notion within emerging concepts of decolonisation, coloniality and colonialism – particularly in the humanitarian arena. In this context, the theory of post-structuralism has a strong commitment to deconstruct the linear nature of Global North ideologies and transcend beyond the perceived reasoning behind global dominance of colonial power, knowledge and practices – particularly in regards to international development programs (Ravulo, Mafile’o & Yeates, 2019).

My involvement within the humanitarian and international development fields has made me acutely aware of how the Global North, or Western societies, privilege their concepts of modernity as superior to traditional practices or ways of living.

It seems a product of this is the demonisation of the role Indigenous knowledges on contemporary research, policy, practices and development programs. It is also within the realm of post-structuralist theory that we are challenged to question and deconstruct the underlying discourses that have contributed to the continuum of inequality found within a binary view, and to acknowledge the potential tensions as part of a broader agenda to identify solutions to reconcile the Global North and Global South by recognising the value in both (Ravulo, 2019). There is significant scope to simultaneously strive for modern advancement as well as maximise the inclusion and participation of Indigenous communities and the knowledges they carry. From a professional standpoint, this will be a constant balancing act – one cannot be sacrificed for the other. Instead, the Global North and Global South should collaboratively influence and stimulate the potential for discovering and supporting cultural diversity in its full essence and many differences.

The urgency for the decolonisation and indigenisation of social work education, knowledge and practice has become progressively apparent to me throughout my university career and professional experience – particular in regard to the promotion, protection and attainment of human rights.

Without playing too much on the clichés, I have been on an upward trajectory of learning and discovery, and one that is far from being completed. Throughout this, I have gained significant understanding, empathy and insight into the richness of Global South knowledges and traditions, as well as the binary limitations of Global North epistemologies/traditions that I was socialised by, conditioned, and then reinforced throughout my schooling and tertiary education. This growth is far from completion, and I eagerly anticipate its next phases. As I reflect thus far, however, I can identify several key moments of learning and consciousness-raising throughout my professional and university career. What I have realised is that very few of these have been provoked by anything shared or written by western social workers or other professionals from the Global North. Instead, the moments of learning and conscious raising that I speak of and recognise as professional turning points have predominantly come from insights and knowledge from non-western social workers, others from the Global South, or reading of reports that have been rich in local and indigenous participation or consultation.

My learning thus far has been both professional and personal. Whilst for the most part I have found this distinction a helpful tool, in the context of international development and humanitarian response, I find the professional-personal boundary to be decidedly unhelpful. Decolonisation, alongside other emerging terms such as neo-colonialism and coloniality, are undeniably deeply personal experiences and should not be restrained within the boundaries of what we understand as the social work profession. Arguably, the inflexible professional-personal boundary, usually unchallenged within the practice of Western social work, is one of the limitations that decolonial social work must deconstruct and reframe (Land, 2015). The disconnect between personal and professional boundaries does not embody the realism of social work outside of the Global North context – particularly in international social work. For a profession that, appropriately, seeks to problematise the boundary between personal and political, it is surely not too much to ask to similarly problematise the boundary between personal and professional. I believe that in attempting to address the obscenity of decolonisation, neo-colonialism and coloniality, critical thinking/reflection – both tools that are bedrocks of social work in the Global North – is not enough.

One of the biggest lessons I have gained thus far is that social workers from the Global North (or from a culture of colonial history), however good their intentions, is somewhat implicit in continuing the colonising structures and knowledges that are largely responsible for the racial oppression and disadvantage (Mafile’o et al, 2019). My position as a social worker, therefore, cannot be a neutral one. Rather, I must take a side. In doing so, social workers of the Global North, including myself, need to reflect upon and evaluate the professional socialisation, conditioning, education and structures that formulate their social work knowledge. Whilst critical reflection may be the first phase of this process, it is this reflexivity that recognises, informs and accepts the social workers inbuilt complicity to coloniality and its histories (Braam, 2017). The second phase, therefore, requires committed and informed action. There are a number of international NGOs that are committed to building an architecture that facilitates this commitment through purposeful action. Throughout my professional career thus far I have contributed to the beginning stages of this architecture, and have confidence that my work towards movements such as localisation and locally-led development will be a valuable influence in the efforts towards decolonising international development and dismantling its colonial legacies.

To conclude, I believe that it is the responsibility of all social workers to promote holistic, broader conceptualisations about the method in which Global North epistemologies in social work can disrupted by challenging the status quo, reinforced by dominant discourses that lead to marginalisation and exclusion (Brown & Strega, 2005). Moreover, social workers play a crucial part in successfully decolonising what we understand to be modernisation, especially in the realm of humanitarian response, international development and community development. It’s through this collectivist approach, or “solesolevaki” as discussed previously, that we truly create a platform for “veiqaravi”. For everyone to serve, and support inclusive and just societies, locally, nationally and globally. Additionally, it is also the responsibility of all social workers to assure that indigenous and local voices are amplified, included and participated in programs or services that are design with them in mind. Finally, it is a continuous hope of mine that we can achieve a post-colonial world by championing and upholding discourses that lead to acceptance of cultural diversity and all its difference whilst creating social work practices, polices and research that disrupts the universal and dominant nature of the Global North.