Premium
Some considerations on the debate on social work in China: who speaks for whom?
Author(s) -
Gray Mel
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
international journal of social welfare
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.664
H-Index - 47
eISSN - 1468-2397
pISSN - 1369-6866
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2008.00603.x
Subject(s) - dichotomy , argument (complex analysis) , china , indigenization , politics , sociology , indigenous , work (physics) , social work , political science , epistemology , positive economics , law , economics , mechanical engineering , ecology , philosophy , chemistry , biochemistry , anthropology , biology , engineering
In this article I persist with my argument that indigenous, local, culturally relevant practice ought to trump the external imposition of social work definitions, standards and professional models. The challenge, however, is not to fall prey to false dichotomies. Importantly, social work in China is not static but emergent, and no‐one is sure of the exact shape it will take. And the essential question is to what extent will Western knowledge and standards be uncritically appropriated into China? Most contributors to the debate thus far have taken the international definition of social work as their starting point, but far more significant are the political dimensions involved in this process of indigenisation. This article proposes that empirical evidence from within China regarding culturally appropriate, effective local responses – and some clear benchmarks for international engagement – should form the basis for dialogue between China and the broader social work community.