Reconfiguring ‘Chineseness’ in the international discourse on social work in China

The international community needs to foster mutual exchanges of experiences and information between social workers in different societies. More opportunities for the representation of Third World social workers at international gatherings are needed, and publication sources should provide a forum for disseminating Third World experiences … It is time to challenge the one way international flow of ideas and practices and to learn from the Third World (Midgley, 1990, p. 300)

 

The modern notion of culture thus becomes problematic. Problematizing culture, critiquing essentialist ideas about culture, focusing on the diversity and subordination of the Other under the conditions of late capitalism, all contribute to debate on the production and reproduction of welfare discourses and practices (Leonard, 1997, p. 61)

 

In the new era of economic globalization, the success and sustainability of the coexistence of humankind hinges on how much we respect and learn from one another within and across cultural, geographical and political boundaries. In the field of international social work, practitioners and scholars in the North passionately call for learning from the South (Hartman, 1990a; Midgley, 1990). Their previously silent or silenced Southern counterparts were eager to bring their perspectives into international intellectual debates. As Dei, Hall and Rosenberg (2000) observed, more and more people have come to realize the urgency of “promoting multiple and collective readings of the world, and (of) exploring multiple and alternative knowledge forms” (p. 70). The major challenge is to find ways in which these theories and practices are transferable across contexts (Gray & Fook, 2004) while avoiding the imperialistic imposition of western notions of social work (Gray, 2005; Midgley, 1981). At the core of these debates and dialogues is the question of how to identify, understand and respect cultural difference within and between national and regional borders (Gray, 2005). An examination of the literature on cultural difference, particularly in relation to the so called ‘indigenization’ of social work theories and practices within the International Social Work (ISW) journal between 1986 and 2006 revealed that ‘culture’ is used as a ‘relational demarcator’ (Park, 2005) inscribing differential positions and hierarchical identities. The limits of universality and the need for adaptation rest on how we deal with ‘difference’ between the west, where social work originated, and the rest.

However, as noted in Chapter 1, culture is a fussy term. In his much celebrated book Orientalism, Said (1978) warned that knowledge of cultural difference can be deceptive. Culture is not a pre-existing thing to be known, but a product of the knowing process that involves an uneven relationship of power between the dominant knower and his or her culturally different ‘Other’. The uncritical use of the term ‘culture’ might pose a danger, weakening issues of ‘hierarchy’ and ‘power’ in the imagination and articulation of difference (Bilik, 2002). Also, it runs the risk of obfuscating contextual factors that require political and intellectual intervention, as in the case of Indigenous Peoples, reifying Otherness and making excuses for neglect or domination, as the case may be, in local and international social welfare discourse (Razack, 1998).

Based on observations in the field of crosscultural psychology, Kim (2000) identified several common problems when ‘adaptation to local cultural contexts’ was called for: (i) often the texts cited in justification were developed several thousand years ago mostly within philosophical or religious school of thoughts, like Confucianism, Buddhism and Daoism in East Asia, where their nature and use were very different from the empirical orientation of western social theories; (ii) within a particular culture, only a small percentage of the population had direct knowledge of the texts from which their cultural practices derived; (iii) while people were cautious about crosscultural impositions, there was a tendency to neglect social pressures towards conformity ‘within-cultures’; and (iv) despite the consequent cultural unity thus engendered, systemic analysis of the texts from which cultural practices originated revealed numerous contradictions, inconsistencies and conceptual leaps of faith. The essential point is that there is diversity even within cultures but unity becomes a political force of resistance when a culture is threatened from without.

The poststructuralist scholar, Avtar Brah (1996), says that to fully understand the meaning of culture in particular contexts, it is important to ask how the notion of difference is used to designate the culturally different ‘other’ and what the consequences of this are. Clearly, the presumed norms which mark a population as different depends on who is defining difference and on the way in which boundaries are drawn or constituted, maintained or challenged. More important for our purposes, however, is whether or not this ‘Othering’ discourse is helpful in intercultural exchanges.

Since crosscultural social work and the global application or transfer of social work have been major themes in International Social Work over the last twenty years, it seemed an appropriate place to start in examining social work’s construction of the notion of ‘Chineseness’. Being a Canadian social work researcher of Chinese descent, my ethnic background provides me with an entry point to look at the construction of ‘Chineseness’, to explore its complexity as a marker of cultural and political identity and to open a discursive space for critical thinkers to interrogate social relations, cultural identities and individual subjectivities in their ongoing struggle for global social justice and the recognition of human rights across diverse sociopolitical and cultural contexts. However, Chineseness in this context is also a metaphor for ‘indigenous’ and the discussion which follows raises issues that are paralleled in the experiences of Indigenous Peoples everywhere. Who constructs indigenous identities and who determines what Indigenous people need? Who is interpreting indigenous culture and deciding on the nature of indigenous social work? While this chapter examines these questions through the lens of ‘Chineseness’, the lessons and observations have a much wider import and relevance.

As a result of a keyword search to identify articles which dealt with issues relating directly to Chinese populations, communities and cultures, ninety eight articles were downloaded and reviewed to determine the following: (i) the way in which ‘Chineseness’ was constructed; (ii) the way in which the ‘West’ was imagined and projected as the backdrop against which ‘Chineseness’ was juxtaposed; and (iii) the ‘nativity’ evoked and performed to provide writers with ‘discursive authority’. As in the case of Indigenous Peoples, questions were raised as to who had the authority to speak on this subject: Chinese people living in China or Chinese people living in other parts of the world. Does Chineseness signify the same to Chinese people in China and in Chinese diasporas? By the same token are there different forms of indigeneity depending on where in the world one lives or on whether one is a first, second or third generation First Nations person? In his book Songman, Bob Randall (2003) talks about his shock and sadness when many of his reservation friends and family refused to participate in any of the cultural activities he was organizing. “They told me”, he recalled, “We are ‘coloured people’ not Aborigines … It was as if a whole new race had been created because they did not want to be considered Aboriginal” (p. 90).

Culture as a site of domination and resistance

In his most influential work Orientalism, Edward Said (1978) provided a convincing argument relating to the way in which “European culture gained … strength and identity by setting itself off against the Orient as a sort of surrogate and even underground self” (p. 3). However, he emphasized that:

 

This is not to say that Orientalism unilaterally determines what can be said about the Orient, but that it is the whole network of interests inevitably brought to bear on any occasion when that peculiar entity “the Orient” is in question (p. 3).

In and through a web of power relations, people in the West discussed the Orient and developed a set of discourses on Orientalism to establish an allegedly superior ‘Western Self’ in relation to an inferior ‘non-Western Other’. Philosophically speaking, Orientalism begins with the assumption that there is a radical distinction between the East and West, and then proceeds to treat everything as evidence in support of this ‘two worlds’ division. One of the major criticisms levelled against Said’s work is that he characterized colonial discourse as a homogenous group of texts which bore a monolithic message about the colonial ‘Other’ (Mills, 2004). Bhabha (1994) criticized his suggestion that colonial power and discourse was possessed and constructed entirely by the ‘colonizer’ as this was a historical and theoretical oversimplification. Said implied that Orientalist knowledge was all powerful and his notion of the homogeneity of culture has been challenged (Spivak, 1988).

Fifteen years later in Culture and Imperialism (1993), Said’s sequel to Orientalism, he introduced the idea of ‘contrapuntal reading’ as an analytical method to examine the perspectives of both the colonizer and the colonized so as to accommodate both accounts of history by addressing “imperialism and the resistance to it … by extending our reading of the texts to include what was once forcibly excluded” (p. 66-67). In short, Said recognized that what was not said might be as important as what was said. Thus he claimed that textual analysis required the deconstruction of the structural and historical components of texts and the reconstruction of their internal logic from the perspective of the present.

Edward Said’s Orientalism revolutionized western understanding of nonwestern cultures by showing how western projected images shaped the occidental view of the Orient. However, Carrier’s (1995) and Chen’s (1992, 1995) work pushed the theoretical edge further and led people to reflect this understanding back onto western societies, that is, onto what they called Occidentalism. Carrier (1995) saw Occidentalism as “styled images of the West” (p. 1). It showed the way in which images of the West shaped people’s conceptions of themselves and others, and how these images were, in turn, shaped by members of western and nonwestern societies alike. It led people to examine the dualism of essentialized images of the Orient as well as of the West.

Chen (1995) saw Occidentalism as a product of western imperialism. She forced people to see beyond the imperial West and subjugated ‘Other’ and to recognize that forces of domination and resistance also came from within the East and West respectively. In her book Occidentalism: A Theory of Counter-Discourse in Post-Mao China, Chen (1995) demonstrated that Chinese Occidentalism was not simply imposed from afar, but was constantly and creatively changed by Chinese concerns with adapting constructions of—Orientalism and—Occidentalism to their own political purposes. What interested her most was how Occidentalism as a discursive construct was imported into China and became an instrument of the communist government and intelligentsia. Chen (1992) defined Chinese Occidentalism as:  

 

… primarily a discourse that has been evoked by various and competing groups within Chinese society for a variety of different ends, largely, though not exclusively, within domestic Chinese politics. As such, it has been both a discourse of oppression and … of liberation (p. 688).

Chen (1992) argued that Chinese Occidentalism constituted two related yet separate appropriations of the same discourse for strikingly different political ends. The first was ‘official Occidentalism’ in which the Chinese government used “the essentialization of the West as a means for supporting a nationalism that effect(ed) the internal suppression of its own people” (p. 688) such that anything opposed to the dominant Maoist political discourse could be labelled ‘western’, bourgeois or pro-capitalism and thus be subject to strict censure and prosecution. For example, intellectuals who studied things ‘western’ were accused of promoting the notion that “that the Western Other was … superior to (the) Chinese Self” (p. 691). Either by virtue of their cultural status or their perceived political sympathies to the West, alongside the official Occidentalism there arose an “anti-official Occidentalism” that was contingently and strategically employed by the Chinese intelligentsia to articulate what was otherwise “politically impossible” and “ideologically inconceivable” (p. 692). To her, excessively positive evaluation of western civilization by some Chinese scholars could be seen as a “potent anti-official discourse” in contrary to the anti-western official Occidentalism (1995, p. 28). Thus she stressed that all discourse was local and contingent and, therefore, must be judged not just in terms of its content but also by its political effects or consequences. The First Nations discourse might be seen in the same light (see Chapter 7).

In a nutshell, Orientalism and Occidentalism must be seen as theories or signifying practices without essential content. To Chen (1992), it was the use to which they were put by those who articulated them, and by those who heard and received them, that determined “their social – and literary – effects” (p. 710).

Clearly then culture is a site of domination and resistance. The construction of culture, in this case Chineseness, and cultural difference rests on the operation of power relations in ‘discursive spaces’ whether writers are silencing or making ‘marginalized voices’ heard. In the international arena that is dominated by English language, writers can only but write from their privileged position—educated and westernized. Their proficiency in English equips them to engage in the study of western ideas and theories and their proficiency in Chinese enables them to serve as intercultural interlocutors. How does one assess the ‘accuracy’ of such translations of cultural meaning and (re)configurations of Chineseness? Until Chinese texts are translated into English―rather than the other way around―we have no empirical or concrete grounds on which to engage in mutual intercultural dialogue. At the rate with which western social work is being introduced into China, it is unlikely that such a grounded approach is possible.

(Re)configuring ‘Chineseness’: Who and what is Chinese?

Smith (2003) optimistically noted that having “had a unique past, the Chinese will have their own unique future” (p. 403). To be sure, China has a unique 6000 year history which predates the emergence of western history with the Ancient Greeks two thousand years ago. But what makes Chinese social work unique if it is being imported from the west? What implications arise from the importation of western social work into the People’s Republic of China (PRC)?

            Without exception, the writers believed that social work in China or within the Chinese diaspora had unique ‘Chinese characteristics’ that defined them as nonwestern. However, there were differing opinions on the nature of these characteristics and their relevance to the development and understanding of social work theories and practices. Given the domination of communist ideology for over half a century, writers struggled with the extent to which so-called ‘Chinese characteristics’ were rooted in traditional Chinese culture or whether they were constituted by the contemporary political regime. Although Chinese leaders continue to maintain the essential socialist character of the country (Ngan & Hui, 1996), there has never been a fixed, unified, dominant interpretation of its socialist ideology (Tsang & Yan, 2001). Those who insist that knowledge of indigenous culture rests on the “identification of genuine and authentic roots in the local system” (Ragab, in Cheung & Liu, 2004, p. 112) need to argue which roots are indeed local, original and authentically Chinese.

Writing from an in between space as Chinese Canadians, Tsang and Yan (2001) in their paper entitled ‘Chinese corpus and western application’ challenge their Chinese colleagues to recognize the immense diversities within their country along inter alia ethnic, rural-urban, gender, and class lines. Nevertheless, as they observed, the discourse on the development of social work in China assumed that there was an essentially ‘Chinese corpus’―a body of knowledge and structure of social institutions, cultural traditions and Chinese values—grounded in Confucianism (see also Becerra & Chi, 1992; Chan, 1992; Chan, 2006; Cheung & Liu, 2004; Kilpatrick & Zhang, 1993; Yan, 1998; Yao, 1995; Yip, 2005a). In this social work discourse, Confucianism is used to explain the importance of family to individual identity (Cheung & Liu, 2004), the centrality of harmony and integration (Chow, 1987; Kilpatrick & Zhang, 1993), students’ lack of creativity (Chan & Chan, 2005), children’s submission to hierarchy and authority (Kwok & Tam, 2005), and the primacy of benevolence over rights in Chinese society (Yao, 1995).

             Among these texts, Chow’s (1987) paper on ‘Western and Chinese ideas of social welfare’ was repeatedly cited by other writers to articulate their notions of Chinese culture, or to support their view of the differences between western and Chinese welfare systems. Interestingly, Chow (1987) cautioned that ideas about social welfare were “no more than shadows of prototypes which can at best show how people think, but cannot account for how they behave” and “it is almost impossible … to treat each belief system as a separate entity developed autonomously and unaffected by others” (p. 32). Likewise, Nai-Ming Tsang (1997) warned that it was a “mistake to assume homogeneity among people within the same culture” saying that both “intercultural and intracultural heterogeneity” (p. 141) must be carefully examined. Still, it is not uncommon to see writers turning these philosophical ‘ideas’ about ‘ideal or prototypical states’ into explanatory tools for empirical inquiry into Chinese help seeking and caring behaviour. Consider the following examples from academics in Hong Kong:

 

Generally speaking, traditional Confucian concepts of mental health still have a very strong influence on the thinking and behavior of Chinese. For those Chinese coming from or in Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, its impact is still strong. Traditional Chinese concepts of mental health encourage Chinese people to restrain their emotion, avoid interpersonal conflict and suppress individual rights so as to maintain harmony with others and with the law of nature (Yip, 2005a, p. 395).

 

Under the guidance of li, they are conscious of their performance and judgements by others. Doing things in a right and proper way is important, and they will feel a loss of face if they fail. The culture discourages experimentation. Chinese students tend to avoid taking risks by trying new ideas. Too much consciousness of performance and others’ judgements discourages people from being creative and adventurous in their knowledge building (Chan & Chan, 2005, p. 385).

 

[T]he Chinese sayings ‘do not give what one dislikes to others’, or ‘restrain oneself and respect the rule of propriety’ became guiding mottoes of the Chinese in their human interactions. It is only that one could gradually work towards the ideal of being ren, that is being virtuous. With such an understanding, it would not be difficult to understand why the Chinese tended to avoid conflicts and maintain harmony as far as possible (Yuen-Tsang, 1999, p. 368).

These writers try to apply normative schema to interpret, explain and justify what Chinese people do or do not do. Since social work as it is known in the west is completely foreign to China, it has to be introduced from the west and acculturated for a Chinese audience. Given the way these cultural characteristics are articulated, it is almost impossible to dispute or affirm the extent to which they match reality. At best they may be described as theoretical or normative. Nevertheless, they convey―and are creating and influen cing―a distinct ‘discursive current’ in the discourse on China in the international social work literature.

Arif Dirlik (1987) referred to this as ‘culturalism’―an “ideology which not only reduces everything to questions of culture, but has a reductionist conception of the latter as well” (p. 14). While she acknowledges the centrality of culture in international discourse and the importance of people’s worldviews, she believes that ‘culturalist’ assertions of the autonomy of culture as exemplified in the international social work literature needs to be critically examined. This literature reduces the ‘whole of experience’ to questions of culture through an artificial intellectual exercise whereby those constructing the discourse are not those engaged in confronting everyday problems in China. Real ‘cultural engagement’, as Bhabha (1994) points out, whether antagonistic or affiliative, is produced performatively through cultural practices; intercultural dialogue or discursive interaction constructs interpretations of practice or normative schema of what practice requires. In the international social work discourse, Chinese perspectives can only be introduced through a western lens because they must be articulated in English to reach a western audience. Thus, as Bhabha (1994) notes,

 

The representation of difference must not be hastily read as the reflection of pre-given ethnic or cultural traits set in the fixed tablet of tradition ... The ‘right’ to signify from the periphery of authorized power and privilege is resourced by the power of tradition to be inscribed through the conditions of contingency and contradictoriness that attend upon the lives of those who are ‘in the minority’ (Bhabha, 1992, p. 2).

The minority here might be educated Chinese writers involved in introducing social work to China and interpreting China’s needs and struggles to the west. Their ‘culturalist analysis’ is filled with the possibility of liberating Chinese people from oppression, masking the hegemonic nature of the western theories and practices they are introducing.

However, culturalist discourse could never gain full legitimacy if it were at odds with the official storyline of the Chinese authorities. The question is whether this discourse of traditional values could also serve the interests of the ruling regime. As some writers argue, the reawakening of the Confucian tradition comes right in time to fill the ideological void resulting from the erosion of socialist ideals over the past two decades (Chan, 1992; Karl, 2005).

The Chinese government would seem to be at a crossroads. After decades of economic reform, the socialist system has been replaced gradually with a market economy. State enterprises started to vanish, as did the public welfare functions tied with these production units. The need for welfare and the dilemma of providing social care without over-burdening the profit making potential of the newly emerging capitalist market presents the government with a dilemma. And the ideological basis of contemporary welfare philosophy being promoted in China is unclear. Thus Chan (1992) questions whether it is based “on Confucianism, Marxism or Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’?” (p. 352).

Under communism, all aspects of life in Mainland China could be politicized and the possibility remains that the cultural discourse reaching the ears of the communist leaders is becoming part of its new political armoury. This was evident in President Hu Jintao’s policy framework for ‘Building Harmonious Society’ introduced during the 10^th Annual Meeting of the Chinese National People’s Congress in March 2005. It would seem that the Confucian ethos is being used as a lever as the government seeks to maintain its legitimacy through economic reform, that is, the introduction of western capitalism and western ideas to China.

Bringing a “new rationality to old values” (Chau & Yu, 1998, p. 17), the communist leaders have downplayed revolutionist solidarity and class struggles and attempted to make traditional Chinese culture, socialist ideology and the market economy work together. As Chau and Yu (1998) observe, “traditional values such as family and self-care, interdependence, and emphasis on informal care still form part of the backbone of the new welfare system. Current reforms demonstrate the resurgence of these values” (p. 17).

The fantasy of an authentically ‘culturalist China’ serves as an ‘anti-politics’ (Karl, 2005) while ruling elites join swiftly and smoothly with the rest of the world economically simultaneously clinging to a political authoritarianisms. Chinese social workers, whether professionally trained or not, have rarely or “at least not publicly” (Tsang & Yan, 2001, p. 442) questioned the move to capitalist economic reform and the linking of social stability with the achievement of wealth and prosperity. Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether they, as participants in this ‘culturalist discourse’, deliberately or consciously wish to promote the interests of the government and its ostensible intention to nurture social stability and social harmony through self-reliance at the grassroots level and centralized control of resources.

Indeed, certain ‘culturalist’ analyses could easily be adopted by political elites to justify denial of the government’s caring responsibilities. For instance, in her study on mental health services in China, Pearson (1989) pondered whether Chinese people indeed favoured family care over hospital care or whether this was merely a cover for the lack of medical services. Through interviews and field observation, she maintained that Chinese people had no choice but develop alternative ways of looking after the mentally ill because the government failed to provide the formal hospital care they would otherwise have liked. In fact, there are frequent reports of demands to provide more inpatient facilities (Pearson, 1989, p. 60).

Ngan and Hui (1996) suggested that social workers should be more vocal in advocating for progressive social change and enhanced social justice and they should expand social work’s role in policy development. In a haze of nostalgia, they recalled that social workers in Hong Kong had played an active role in advocating for macro level social policy initiatives but unfortunately, this role was not part of the existing discourse. Unfortunately, little will change while ‘culturalists’ extol traditional Chinese values like family allegiances, self reliance and submission to the power hierarchy (Chan & Chan 2005; Yao, 1995).

Reconstructing the West: Where and what is the West?

The “idea of ‘the West’ … (which) was essential to the … formation of (Western) … society” (Hall, 1996, p. 187) seems to pervade western social work knowledge and practice where it is seen as a monolithic and homogenous entity (Tsang & Yan, 2001). In much the same way, the idea of a unique stable ‘Chinese corpus’ seems to characterize the international literature on social work in China. Thus it presents Chinese society and cultural traditions, even within the Chinese diaspora contra the monolithic West. In his seminal paper, ‘The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power’, cultural theorist Stuart Hall (1996) identified four ways in which the concept or idea of ‘the West’ functioned: (i) it allowed the creation of the binary categories of western and nonwestern; (ii) it led to images of western, urban and developed countries set against nonwestern, non industrialized and underdeveloped ones; (iii) it resulted in comparisons between western and nonwestern societies; and (iv) it functioned as a standard of evaluation against which other societies were ranked. Hall (1996) saw the “the West and the Rest” discourse as destructive since “it draws crude and simplistic distinctions and constructs an over-simplified conception of ‘difference’” (p. 189). It represents things which, in reality, are fluid and diverse as fixed and homogeneous. In short, the idea of the West plays a powerful role as China seeks to establish a postsocialist identity.

Science is an aspect of western culture which some Chinese scholars seek to emulate. Thus ‘western scientific approaches to social work’ are valued highly even though aspects of Chinese culture are seen to be incompatible with scientific enquiry (Chan & Chan, 2005):

 

The hierarchy of teacher and student is defined by li (rites). For a student the two golden rules are to respect the teacher and to honor truth. A teacher’s role is highly respected, as he or she owns knowledge and truth. Challenging a teacher’s ideas is deemed to be impolite. The stereotype of the Chinese student is that he or she displays an almost unquestioning acceptance of the knowledge of the teacher or lecturer (p. 383).

 

In Western teaching the main focus is on the development of creativity. The Chinese method focuses on memorization and students are expected to memorize the classics. In ancient China, advancement was based entirely on examinations and the only subject in the curriculum was classical literature (p. 385).

 

In Western society the main purpose of obtaining knowledge is to control, manipulate and change the natural and the social worlds. Positivism is the dominant paradigm that guides research themes and methodologies. In contrast, the Chinese hold a harmonious attitude towards nature (p. 385-386).

To make scientific enquiry work, Chan and Chan (2005) believe that some of those cultural elements that are incompatible with scientific enquiry should be eliminated. On the other hand, they also consider that the strengths of Chinese culture must be retained if Mainland China is to develop its own indigenous methods of enquiry. In this discourse, ‘western’ and ‘Chinese’ are seen as two divergent traditions. While the cultural difference between western methodology and Chinese ways of knowing is emphasized, the diversity among Chinese is not. Concepts, interventions and practices developed in one Chinese community, like in Canada, are often seen to be equally relevant in the UK, USA and Australia, for example (Kwok & Tam, 2005):

 

Although the discussion in this article is in the context of the Chinese community in Canada, the implications for social work practice could be relevant to other Chinese communities in western countries … where legislation prescribes social workers with a statutory role in child protection (p. 341).

This notion of ontological sameness and global knowledge transfer overshadows the ‘intersecting diversity’ within and between Chinese societies (Tsang & Yan, 2001). Thus Tsang and Yan (2001) challenge social work scholars in the west to “resist the temptation of prescribing a single, comprehensive approach to our Chinese colleagues” (p. 448).

Interestingly, none of the writers ask “Where is the West?” In the discourse, Toronto, the city where I live, is part of the West while Hong Kong, the place where I was born, is in the East even though each time I fly over the Pacific to visit my family in Hong Kong and go in a westerly direction. The West signifies liberal democracy and capitalist society, rather than the Marxist-Leninist politics of China even though they have their roots in western philosophy. To the extent that the PRC idealizes the work ethic, egalitarianism, social justice, the class struggle, and proletarianism, it embodies the values western Marxists extol (Chan & Tsui, 1997). China has been a socialist ‘welfare state’ since 1949 and its modernization project continues to follow the Four Cardinal Principles: socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the leadership of the party, and the ideology of Marx, Lenin and Mao (Chau & Yu, 1998). The only difference in Deng’s social reforms which began in the 1970s is the hegemonic force of global market economics and capitalist ideology but it has not replaced the Marxist-Maoist modernist logic which prevails in the PRC.  Still the culturalist discourse seems optimistic about the possibility of developing culturally relevant indigenous social work in China despite these hegemonic western forces (Ngai, 1996). In fact, Cheung and Liu (2004) contend that the kind of social work which develops in China will have “a ripple effect” in the international discourse “on the definition of social work” (p. 123). In similar vein, Chi (2005) believes that it will have an impact on social work in developing countries:

 

China could learn from the experiences of developing social work in the developed countries and at the same time take the initiative to develop social work that is more appropriate for the developing countries. China has no real burden of historical established social work structure, so it can take any direction it likes to develop its own social work theories and practices to meet the needs of its society. This opportunity would not only benefit China itself but also contribute to global social work development (p. 379).

Relocating the tellers of the tales: Who are the speakers and who is missing?

The tales tell more about the tellers than the story told (Hall, 2000).  So who are the tellers of the Chinese tales? The majority of the authors of the selected texts were scholars of Chinese descent living and teaching in Hong Kong. There were also ten authors writing from the Chinese diaspora in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. Meng Liu is the only scholar who is teaching social work in China. With few exceptions, the non-Chinese contributors co-authored papers with their Chinese colleagues or students. Both Smith (2003) and Pearson (1989) referred to themselves as westerners and acknowledged the effect of their western viewpoint on their research. For example, Pearson (1989) noted that “Westerners sometimes tend(ed) to romanticize the idea of the closely knit Chinese family and community, comparing it with our own (western) isolationist and alienated existence” (p. 60).

The established authority of Hong Kong scholars is evident as most of the articles published in English language journals, including those submitted to ISW, come from authors in Hong Kong rather than Mainland China or Macau. Indeed, Hong Kong is a major player in the development of social work education and practice in China (Chi, 2005; see Chapters 13 and 14). As early as 1986, the Asian Pacific Association of Social Work Education established the Committee on Relationships with China to explore possible future relationships with the PRC. The members of this committee were predominantly from Hong Kong (Chamberlain, 1991). It comprised Angelina Yuen and Paul Lee from the Hong Kong Polytechnic and Nelson Chow from Hong Kong University with Janet George from the University of Sydney and Edna Chamberlain, the President of APASWE ex-officio, from Australia. It was chaired by Foo Tak Nam from the Hong Kong Polytechnic and its mandate was to maintain ongoing dialogue with members of the Peking University which had received approval from the PRC Department of Education to develop a social work program in China. 

Having been a colony of the United Kingdom until 1997, the colonial influence which characterized social work education and practice in Hong Kong inter alia the English language as the medium of instruction and communication of research findings, was extended to China by social work academics, as is evidenced in the international discourse already discussed (Chi, 2005). One might question whether Hong Kong scholars are ‘qualified’ to represent the interests of people in Mainland China. Are they the authentic voice of Chinese people living in Mainland China? What information are they privileging and what are they leaving out of this discourse? Is it in their interests to claim success and progress in developing social work in Mainland China? If ‘indigenization’ comes from within (Cheung & Liu, 2004) and reflects the multiethnic, multilingual and multicultural nature of China, can knowledge transferred from Hong Kong be indigenous (Wang, 2000). Interestingly, scholars who are writing from an in between position seem to be more eager to address the issue of internal diversity among the Chinese in their communities and across the globe (Kung, 2005; Sin & Yan, 2003; Tsang & Yan, 2001).

In anthropology, nativization―or indigenization―is complex and political (Bilik, 2002):

 

Scholars in China talk about ‘nativization” in similar terms, but differing overtones. Han colleagues talk ‘nativization’ meaning China versus the West. Mongolian scholars advocate ‘nativization’ hinting at Mongol versus Han and the West …Within the Mongolian scholarly community, ‘nativization’ can mean mother-tongue or even dialect-based scholarship. The checklist has to stop here, though further fragmentation is still possible (p. 137).

As Bilik (2002) illustrates, particularism in China, as in the rest of the world, is hierarchically ordered. Each higher order can use ‘universalism’ against the ‘particularism’ of the lower order(s), and theoretically the latter can also use the ‘particularism’ against higher orders. In reality, the hierarchy of difference is maintained through differential access to discursive spaces: language and access to publication and computer technology is available for a privileged minority. Thus as well as calling for ‘indigenization’ from within (Enriquez, 1993), one also needs ‘indigenization’ from below. Ethnic minorities outside the cities and metropolitan areas where most scholars reside fall beyond the reach (Bilik, 2002) of the social work being introduced in Mainland China. Only Smith’s (2003) study explored the social development of ethnic minorities in China. As Wang (2002) observed in relation to minority issues, scholars who have benefited from their cultural and ethnic affiliation and western educational background form a new breed of local cultural promoters who simultaneously extol crosscultural competence from the North and ‘indigenization’ from the South.

Conclusion

Despite the extreme diversity of the Chinese population, the international literature conveys the idea that there is a single ‘Chinese corpus’ which operates in the same way as the idea of the monolithic West. Those constructing the international discourse on social work in Mainland China come mainly from Hong Kong and the Chinese diaspora which raises questions as to whether they are the authentic voice of the people of Mainland China. This discourse tends to simplify complex political issues by constructing a ‘culturalist’ image of Chineseness based on universal values rooted in Confucianism which the creators of this discourse justify on the basis that it has outlasted socialism. In reality, Chinese leaders are appropriating this culturalist discourse while clinging to socialist ideology despite economic reforms. Thus it is important to use a critical lens which is sensitive to power relations and the need for multiple voices to be heard in this international discourse (Wong, 2002).

 References

Becerra, R. M., & Chi, I. (1992). Child care preferences among low-income minority families. International Social Work, 35(1), 35-47.

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.

Bilik, N. (2002). The ethnicity of Anthropology in China - Discursive divesity and linguistic relativity. Critique of Anthropology, 22(2), 133-148.

Brah, A. (1996). Cartographies of diaspora : contesting identities. London: Routledge.

Carrier, J. (1995). Occidentalism: Images of the West. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Chamberlain, E. R. (1991). The Beijing seminar: social work education in Asia and the Pacific. International Social Work, 34(1), 27-35.

Chan, K. L. (2006). The Chinese concept of face and violence against women. International Social Work, 49(1), 65-73.

Chan, K. L., & Chan, C. L. W. (2005). Chinese culture, social work education and research. International Social Work, 48(4), 381-389.

Chan, C. L. W. (1992). New challenges to the forms of welfare provision in China after a decade of economic reform. International Social Work, 35(3), 347-363.

Chan, R. K.-H., & Tsui, M.-S. (1997). Notions of the welfare state in China revisited. International Social Work, 40(2), 177-189.

Chen, X. (1995). Occidentalism : a theory of counter-discourse in post-Mao China. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chen, X. (1992). Occidentalism as counterdiscourse: "He Shang" in post-Mao China. Critical Inquiry, 18, 686-712.

Chau, R. C. M., & Yu, S. W. K. (1998). Occupational therapy stations in China: economic integration or economic stratification for people with learning difficulties. International Social Work, 41(1), 7-21.

Cheung, M., & Liu, M. (2004). The Self-Concept of Chinese Women and the Indigenization of Social Work in China. International Social Work, 47(1), 109-127.

Chi, I. (2005). Social work in China: Guest editorial for the special issue. International Social Work, 48(4), 371-379.

Chow, N. W. S. (1987). Western and Chinese ideas of social welfare. International Social Work, 30(1), 31-41.

Dei, G. J. S., Hall, B. L., & Rosenberg, D. G. (2000). Indigenous knowledges in global contexts : multiple readings of our world. Toronto ; Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.

Dirlik, A. (1987). Culturalism as hegemonic ideology and liberating practice. Cultural Critique, 6, 13-50.

Enriquez, V. G. (1993). Developing a Filipino psychology. In U. Kim & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous Psychology: Research and Experience in Cultural Context (pp. 152-169). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gray, M. (2005). Dilemmas of international social work: Paradoxical processes in indigenization, universalism and imperialism. International Journal of Social Welfare, 14, 231-238.

Gray, M., & Fook, J. (2004). The quest for a universal social work: some issues and implications. Social Work Education, 23(5), 625-644.

Hall, S. (2000). Old and new identities, old and new ethnicities. In L. Back & J. Solomos (Eds.), Theories of race and racism (pp. p.144-153). London: Routledge.

Hall, S. (1996). The West and the rest: Discourse and power. In S. Hall, D. Held, D. Hubert & K. Thompson (Eds.), Modernity : an introduction to modern societies (pp. 184-227). Cambridge, Mass. ; Oxford: Blackwell.

Hartman, A. (1990). Our global village. Social Work, 35(4), 291-292.

Karl, R. E. (2005). 'Joining tracks with the world' - The impossibility of politics in China. Radical Philosophy, 131, 20-27.

Kim, U. (2000). Indigenous, cultural, and cross-cultural psychology: A theoretical, conceptual, and epistemological analysis. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 265-287.

Kilpatrick, A. C., & Zhang, M.-J. (1993). Family mediation in the United States and China: a relevant method in social work education for a vulnerable population. International Social Work, 36(1), 75-85.

Kung, W. W. (2005). Western model, Eastern context: Cultural adaptations of family interventions for patients with schizophrenia in China. International Social Work, 48(4), 409-418.

Kwok, S.-m., & Tam, D. M. Y. (2005). Child abuse in Chinese families in Canada: Implications for child protection practice. International Social Work, 48(3), 341-348.

Leonard, P. (1997). Postmodern welfare : reconstructing an emancipatory project. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.

Midgley, J. (1990). International social work: Learning from the Third World. Social Work, 35, 295-301.

Midgley, J. (1981). Professional imperialism : social work in the Third World. London: Heinemann.

Mills, S. (2004). Discourse (2nd ed.). London ; New York: Routledge.

Ngai, N.-P. (1996). Revival of social work education in China. International Social Work, 39(3), 289-300.

Ngan, R., & Hui, S. (1996). Economic and social development in Hong Kong and Southern China: implications for social work. International Social Work, 39(1), 83-95.

Park, Y. (2005). Culture as deficit: A critical discourse analysis of the concept of culture in contemporary social work discourse. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, XXXII(3), 11-33.

Pearson, V. (1989). Making a virtue of necessity: hospital and community care for the mentally ill in China. International Social Work, 32(1), 53-63.

Randall, B. (2003). Songman : the story of an Aboriginal elder of Uluru. Sydney: ABC Books for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Razack, S. (1998). Looking white people in the eye : gender, race, and culture in courtrooms and classrooms. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Said, E. W. (1994). Culture and imperialism. New York: Knopf : Distributed by Random House.

Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism (1st ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.

Sin, R., & Yan, M. C. (2003). Margins as centres: A theory of social inclusion in anti-oppressive social work. In S. Wes (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on anti-oppressive practices (pp. 25-41). Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press Inc.

Smith, A. E. (2003). Social Work and Ethnic Minorities' Social Development in the People's Republic of China. International Social Work, 46(3), 403-419.

Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271-316). Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.

Tsang, K. T. A., & Yan, M.-C. (2001). Chinese corpus,western application: the Chinese strategy of engagement with western social work discourse. International Social Work, 44(4), 433-454.

Tsang, N. M. (1997). Examining the cultural dimension of social work practice: the experience of teaching students on a social work course in Hong Kong. International Social Work, 40(2), 133-144.

Wang, M. (2002). The third Eye. Critique of Anthropology, 22(2), 149-174.

Wang, S.B. (2000). A preliminary discussion on indigenization of social work in China. In K.L. Ho & Wang, S.B. (Eds). An exploration of social work in Chinese societies. River Edge, NJ: Global Publishing Co. 173-190.

Wong, Y.-L. R. (2002). Reclaiming Chinese women's subjectivities: Indigenizing "Social work with women" in China through postcolonial ethnography. Women's Studies International Forum, 25(1), 67-77.

Yan, M. C. (1998). Social functioning discourse in a Chinese context: developing social work in mainland China. International Social Work, 41(2), 181-194.

Yao, J. (1995). The developing models of social work education in China. International Social Work, 38(1), 27-38.

Yip, K.-S. (2005). Chinese concepts of mental health: Cultural implications for social work practice. International Social Work, 48(4), 391-407.

Yuen-Tsang, A. W. K. (1999). Chinese communal support networks. International Social Work, 42(3), 359-371.