Where I Stand on the Cultural Adjustment Spectrum

I finished the last blog by saying that I would express where I stand within the Cultural Adjustment Spectrum (assimilation - acculturation without assimilation - ambivalence - opposition/rejection) in this one.  However, given that this is a topic my own life experience has led me to think about in-depth, this is still only an initial overview of my thoughts.  

Intuitively, due to my own cross-cultural experience living as an American in Brazil for 16 years, and as a semi-Brazilian in the US for 11, I tend toward the second option (acculturation without assimilation), while recognizing that a certain amount of ambivalence may be inevitable for those who move between worlds.  I believe there is great richness lost in mere assimilation, even if it is easiest for the receiving country.  On the other extreme, the terms "opposition" and "rejection" do not sit easily with me.  This does not mean, however, that I am always opposed to immigrant or minority groups bringing social change.  

I deeply admire, among others, people like the Settlement House workers, the women suffragists, and peaceful participants in the civil rights movement of the 1960s.  I admire their refusal to use violence, despite the intense frustration of their causes.  Instead of bringing destruction, they helped us to live more fully into the ideals on which this nation was founded.  Those ideals - of justice, liberty, equality, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and so on - are, to this day, part of the reason immigrants want to come to the United States.  I think immigrant populations have and can continue to help us live out those ideals more fully.  

Unlike many, I do not think that change in and of itself is a bad thing - be it change in culture, in social systems, or in the political forces at work in our country.  We have always been a nation of immigrants, and every new wave has brought its own set of changes.  The realities that some conservative groups now so vocally seek to defend are not the realities that existed here a few decades ago, but the realities that were created by interactions between our culture and the groups of immigrants of each time period.  We are a continually changing nation, and hopefully an ever improving one. 

A Spectrum of Cultural Adjustment

In class last Monday, we discussed paradigms for understanding cultural adjustment to a new culture.  The professor specifically laid out four, along a spectrum:
1. Assimilation (completely taking on the new culture and abandoning your own)
2. Accommodation without assimilation (adjusting to all aspects of the new culture necessary to positive interaction with it, while maintaining your own culture internally and in your own home, as well as in interactions with others from that same culture)
3. Ambivalence (mixed feelings about your identity, as it comprises an uncomfortable and uncertain mix of the two cultures)
4. Opposition/rejection (maintaining your culture of origin as a social or political statement against the new culture)

We discussed this specifically in the context of assessment - the formal exploration of the current reality experienced/faced by the consumer or community.  The point in this context was, I believe, that when responding to people from outside the mainstream culture, it is important to understand which of these approaches they are taking as part of understanding their worldview.  But what then?  Do we simply note their perspective in passing, or do we have an ideal toward which we would like to move our clients?

American culture has sometimes held up one or the other of these positions as an ideal.  Today, there are a wide variety of perspectives.  For many Americans, assimilation is still the preference.  We continue to hear rhetoric from some of our politicians and from many Americans about how immigrants are dangerously bringing new values into our country and failing to take on a fully American identity as they should.

Others feel strongly that every culture is precious and valuable, and that it enriches our country to have cultural enclaves within it, where we have slightly greater contact with immigrant cultures, and where they can feel at home.  The third option, ambivalence, would probably not be the word chosen by any who hold an intermediate view between acculturation and opposition.  Perhaps some might instead say that forming a new synthesis from two opposing thesis (cultures) would result in yet a stronger community.  However, "ambivalence" does express the complexity and uncertainty often inherent in the experience of people trying to move between cultures.

Finally, mainly among those who feel unjustly treated by those in power, we have movements of outright opposition to our current system.  These movements often idealize the cultures from which they came and use them to build a communal consensus against the "enemy" of mainstream culture/power.  Some of these groups tried for decades or centuries to live peacefully in American culture, but continual discrimination, oppression and segregation eventually led to more definitive attempts at transformative political action, whether pacifist or violent.

Social workers at times have been the agents of mainstream culture in attempting to help immigrants assimilate or adjust as seamlessly as possible into our current reality.  At other times, social workers have been voices for change and social reform, specifically because of the abuses against impoverished or underrepresented (often minority or immigrant) groups in out system.  The social work code of ethics speaks always for letting clients/consumers decide for themselves what attitude they should take.  However, that does not allow us, as social workers, to simply brush our hands of the dilemma.  Consciously or unconsciously, our opinion will make a difference in our relationships, and it is important to be aware of these interactions within ourselves.  Furthermore, we often DO try to influence our clients/consumers in one way or another

As therapists, we want to see our consumers become as healthy as possible, and that includes having a picture of what health looks like toward which we hope to move them.  As advocates, it is unlikely we will be effective if we do not see the justice of our clients cause.  As community organizers, we seek to move an entire community.  As policy makers, we seek to influence the direction of an organization, state or nation.  Inevitably, our opinion on this debate will influence our practice.  The larger our sphere of influence, the more obvious this becomes.

So where do I stand?  For a response to that, you will have to see the next blog.

Self-Determination? Are you sure?

One of the primary values of Social Work is self-determination.  We provide clients with information, resources and pathways, but the final choices are theirs.  We are, we proudly say, about empowerment, not paternalism.

As an American, I whole-heartedly agree with this policy.  After all, I am an independent adult and therefore expect the full right to make my own choices the way I think is best.  In fact, I react viscerally to the idea of anyone making decisions about my life for me.  As a result, it only seems fair that I would give my clients the same rights and respect I desire.  And yet, the more I think about it, the more self-determination seems far from a simple concept.  After all, as adult human beings, do we really always know and choose what is best for us?  Without the strong intervention of loved ones, there are times I would have plunged down some very problematic paths.  This question becomes even more complicated, however, when placed in the picture of the addictions and mental illnesses with which many of our clients suffer, forces often directly opposed to wise decision-making.

Today was the first day of my internship.  I shadowed a mobile therapist for a mental health agency that works with people who have been homeless, but now live in apartments partially paid for by the government.  Many of these people have drug and alcohol addictions, mental illnesses, or both.  The first man we went to see was drinking, although it was only 10:00 in the morning.  His whole apartment reeked of alcohol.  He was watching tv, and made comments about spending most of his time in front of the tube.  Nonetheless, he complained vociferously against his landlord for not cleaning up the black mold in his kitchen, for giving him a terrible fridge in desperate need of defrosting, for the bad condition of the wooden steps leading down to his front door, and the list went on.  Some of these things were certainly problems on the landlord's end.  Others seemed fixable with a little bit of concentrated effort on his part.  Reasonable or not, right or not, I confess to a desire to shake the man.  This was probably partly due to the fact that I am currently in school full-time, working part-time and doing a two-day internship, so time to sit and watch a favorite tv show is at a premium for me.  The good news is, no shaking occurred.  Instead I listened politely, nodding and agreeing when necessary and eventually followed the mobile therapist out the door.  She explained to me that this man had not yet recognized that his alcohol addiction was a problem.  He was in the first of four stages through which they hoped to guide their clients, something along the lines of approach, persuasion, gaining health and preventing relapse.

With a little bit of time to calm down, I was able to see that shaking the man would not have been a good idea.  It makes sense that building a trust relationship is an essential first step, before anything else.  The therapist could not simply say, "make different choices," and expect the problems to disappear: addictions do not work that way.  Until the man recognizes the destruction caused in his own life by his own alcoholism, the therapist's hands are tied, except for in helping him with practical things essential to physical survival.  Throughout the day I met other people much further along in the process, many of whom were, frankly, delightful.  I came away admitting to myself that self-determination is not as simple as it initially seemed, but newly committed to trying to practice it.  People do need to be respected, and need as much of a voice as possible in their own choices.

Theological Follow-up

This blog is not for a class assignment.  I just felt compelled to present what I left out of my last post: the spiritual perspective that I did not mention in "A voice for change or a voice for the status quo?"  In Christian circles, we speak of the Kingdom of God as the coming of all good things: a world without suffering, violence, sickness, hatred, oppression, pain, etc.  The Kingdom of God, the Bible says, is both already among us, and yet still coming.  We see it continuously as we see relationships healed, forgiveness rendered, transformation for the good occurring.  On the other hand, we will never see it completely in this life.  This world is tragically marred, and will only be fully fixed when God makes the world new.  This perspective fuels my impetus for change: I have a profound belief that positive change can occur in the world around me; simultaneously, I have no expectation that it will happen easily, immediately, or in all cases.  Thus, my belief in God produces patience and perseverance.  Despite the difficulties of bringing about positive change, I still believe it is worth pursuing.

Today in class we had a special presentation from PFLAG: Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.  It was an excellent presentation, from which I learned a lot.  However, at times the word "sinful" got thrown around as an entirely negative, oppressive, judgmental word.  I can certainly understand why, as calling any group of human beings "sinful" over and against any other group of human beings is both hurtful and bad theology (the Bible teaches that we are ALL sinful, none more or less than any other).  But to put "sinfulness" in a different light, I openly say that the concept has been very helpful to me in reaching out to other human beings.  In truth, the recognition of my own sinfulness has been essential to forming a functional, resilient interaction with the world around me.

By admitting to myself that I am no better than human beings who have committed the acts with which I find it hardest to come to terms, such as the genocide in Rwanda, or the holocaust - by recognizing that my essence is no different than theirs, I find that, though horrified by their acts, I am no longer surprised by them.  In fact, I can reach out in compassion and understanding to these fellow human beings - if I had been in their circumstances, I may have responded the same way.  By not expecting human beings to be better than we are - by recognizing my own sinfulness and our common sinfulness - I find that I can admit the reality of darkness, but not lose hope, for the change - or, to be more precise, the change agent - I have seen in my own life is continually at work all around me.

My theology frees me not to get lost in a world of despair, but instead to pursue the positive difference I can make, trusting that a bigger power has the bigger picture in God's hands.  I forget this sometimes, when life just feels too out of control, too big, too problematic.  But as I turn to God, He restores sense, restores balance, restores perspective, restores sobriety.

A voice for change or a voice for the status quo?

Several times, the professor of my generalist social work class raised the following question (my paraphrase): Do social workers exist simply to make the current social machine function more smoothly, or are we reformers, bringing change where change is needed?  I have found this to be a fascinating question, as I have always imagined social workers as movers and shakers, and yet can see how easily we could be pressured into simply representing the powers that be and maintaining the status quo.  Through my social welfare class, I have discovered that this question goes back to the very beginning of social work.  

Social work was first seriously conceptualized as a profession during the time of the Settlement House movement (around 1890 to 1920), as these urban slum reformers discovered the value of having trained agents in the field, instead of just well-meaning volunteers.  However, in order to gain standing as a profession, it was necessary to gain the approval of the upper echelons of society,  of academia.  A  change in this direction occurred during WWI, as "caseworkers" played key roles in identifying enlisted men who suffered from mental illnesses, thus serving the wider society, not just the poor.  The process opened a whole new perspective of social workers as caregivers for the mentally ill, a service needed by every socio-economic class.  In gaining status through this means, however, social work  largely turned its back on its reformist roots.  To this day, a small group continues to rage against this shift in identity.  

Currently, of the major sociological theories, social work adheres primarily to Systems Theory (initiated by Weber), a perspective that takes into consideration both the person and their environment.  In many ways this is a rich perspective,  bringing attention not only to the inner psychological workings of the individual, but  also to the external realities that make up our lives.  However, it is also a basically conservative perspective, encouraging the smallest possible tweaking of the external situation that will solve the immediate problem: in most cases, this mainly involves changes on the part of the individual or their family.  Another major sociological theory, Conflict Theory (initiated by Marx), on the other hand, raises questions about problems with the systems themselves, encouraging radical reform.  The difference can be seen in the case of a teenager truant from an inner city school.  Is the main problem the way the teenager interacts with his/her environment (Systems Theory), or is it that the school system is not set up to deal with or respond to the realities faced by the teenager's community (Conflict Theory)?  

Both responses to that particular question have been proposed.  Both may contain helpful aspects of truth.  The difficulty with Conflict Theory in practice is that changing systems takes a lot of effort - sometimes across multiple decades or generations - and in the end is not always possible.  Also, the change that benefits one community too easily hinders another.  It is easier to work with individuals and their families, to do as much as we can to bring positive change on a smaller scale.  Sometimes, it  even seems more effective.  Sometimes, however, it seems we are continually fishing people out of the water, without ever going upstream to find out how they got there in the first place.  

I entered social work to become a counselor.  I still have that intention.  I believe my personality and talents function more effectively on a small group or one-on-one basis.  I am more skilled as a therapist than as a social reformer.  However, that does not mean I am content with the status quo.  It does not mean I will ignore the problems in our systems, problems that cause never-ending headaches to the hard-working poor of our own country, not to mention communities internationally.  I will continue to seek to understand the problems and flaws in our society, for in so doing, I better understand what my clients can and cannot effect in their own lives.  I hope to continue to delve into them, that at the right time,  and in the right ways, I might be a voice for change.