Western colonization and ensuing dominance of Eurocentric understandings of what it means to be a person and the nature of human suffering have dominated psychology, sociology, philosophy, religion, and certainly the field of social work throughout the world (Clarke & Yellow Bird, Citation2021; Gray et al., Citation2013; Mignolo & Walsh, Citation2018; Miller, Citation2023). There are many examples of colonization in social work practice: policing parenting practices of people from a range of cultural traditions using a Western notion of what is suitable and in the best interests of children (Miller, Citation2023; Roberts, Citation2020 Citation2022), individualizing psychosocial problems in a decontextualized way (Miller, Citation2012, Citation2023), and the panoply of norms and practices of psychotherapy (e.g., weekly, 50-minute sessions in an office setting), over-emphasizing intellectual insight about emotions over embodied knowledge and experience (Clarke & Yellow Bird, Citation2021; Hemphill, Citation2022) and relying heavily on talk therapy, which might run counter to many non-White or non-Western cultures (Clarke & Yellow Bird, Citation2021; Miller, Citation2023; Mullen, Citation2023). Professional practice, education and training in clinical social work are so embedded in the project of coloniality, that many assumptions go unnoticed, values unchallenged, practices reified as “normal” or “professional” with a narrow understanding of what constitutes evidence, knowledge, and understanding. Anyone trained and practicing as a clinical social worker in not only Western nations, but in most of the world, has been immersed and saturated with the legacies of coloniality (Clarke & Yellow Bird, Citation2021; Miller, Citation2023). It has shaped understandings of people’s inner worlds, what it means to be a person, the nature of human development, the shape of relationships, the connections between individuals and community, and the roles of “professionals,” spiritual leaders and healers (Brave Heart, Citation1998; Clarke & Yellow Bird, Citation2021; Fanon, Citation1963; Gone, Citation2021; Miller, Citation2023; Summerfield, Citation2004). This has led to the marginalization and attempted erasure of Indigenous knowledge and non- Western ways of being. Trauma is often individualized and decontextualized as a psychological condition (i.e., post-traumatic stress disorder) (Carter & Pieterse, Citation2021; Clarke & Yellow Bird, Citation2021; Miller, Citation2012; Ortega-Williams et al., Citation2021), while historical and structural forces that almost always precipitate and perpetuate one’s trauma are often placed on the periphery (Heberle et al., Citation2020), further minimizing or erasing the collective impact of such forces on individuals and communities. The very notion of personhood – what it means to be a person – has been colonized by Western theories of psychology and similarly what is considered “normal,” “healthy” psychosocial functioning (Miller, Citation2023; Summerfield, Citation2004; Wariboko, Citation2018).
Recognizing the deeply embedded effects of over 500 years of coloniality on the view the process of “decolonizing” or “uncolonizing” (Rodriguez, Citation2020) is both urgent and aspirational. This calls us to embark on a complex intellectual and embodied, cultural, relational, spiritual and professional journey requiring marked intention to radically interrogate and change how we understand, make meaning and practice clinical social work. This process involves questioning and criticizing clinical social work for its uncritical assumptions and values that reflect a colonial conceptualization of health and wellbeing, ethics and boundaries, and empirically-supported treatment, often rooted in western epistemologies (Gray et al., Citation2013). There have been efforts to challenge this dominance in a range of countries and we view this special issue as being part of that project. In addition to focusing on individual struggles and suffering, there has been a greater recognition within the field of clinical social work of the impact of organizational and systemic structures of the mental health (Canda et al., Citation2019; Lee et al., Citation2018), child welfare (Gruber, Citation2023), immigration policy and practices (Heberle et al., Citation2020) and carceral systems (Joseph, Citation2014) and the inability of society to meet the basic needs of Indigenous communities, Black families, and other racialized and marginalized groups (Carter & Pieterse, Citation2021; Tascón & Ife, Citation2019).
We see the process of decolonization and uncolonizing (McCubbin et al., this issue) as one of liberation through which each step decreases the replication and malignancy of coloniality in the “soft” power of professionalism. Discussions of “decolonizing” social work – the profession, education and areas of practice – micro, mezzo and macro have increased in frequency and depth since 2020, further incited by the murders of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd and multiple other Black and Brown men and women by police in the United States, leading to collective and individual acts of resistance around the world. Many social work organizations and those of allied professions have spoken out, publicized anti-racism statements acknowledging complicity and calling for change. In the United States and elsewhere, we are experiencing the current and predictable surge of political and societal backlash: SCOTUS decisions (overturning of Roe v. Wade, Affirmative Action); expansion of imperialism and militarization across the globe; autocratic nationalism, economic and health disparities widening, in a world that continues to be dominated by white supremacy, patriarchy, and capitalism. An ever-deepening historically informed critical power analysis is needed to excavate the root causes of structural oppression, racism, and repeated cycles of division and conflict, power and control – dynamics that are played out across systems – interpersonal, institutional, structural (systemic). Clinical social work is not immune from such dynamics; indeed, the profession is rooted in the settler-colonial legacy (Clarke & Yellow Bird, Citation2021; Gray et al., Citation2013), compelling us as clinical social workers, educators and researchers to interrogate and uproot these limiting forces to create new and liberatory pathways.
Clinical social workers are a diverse group of people with a range of identities, values and cultural traditions. We hope that this special issue will facilitate much needed authentic and honest awakening that cultivates and engages critical consciousness – awareness, reflection and action – (Fook, Citation2016; Friere; Freire, Citation1970; Jemal, Citation2017; O’Neill, Citation2015) as part of an ongoing project concerned with the collective liberation of all socially targeted and marginalized people, wherever they live. This involves recognizing, restoring and re-centering subjugated knowledges and cultural practices that are often dismissed or seen as less valid ways of knowing and practicing. Ongoing efforts to eradicate the limiting constraints imposed by coloniality on notions of healing, helping and growth will serve to expand opportunities for clinical social work education, research and practice and foster broad and collective liberation. Thus, this special issue was guided by the following questions: How might conventional clinical social work inflict and perpetuate harm on marginalized communities? What would decolonization look like in the communities of clinical social workers? And what would clinical practice look like if we collectively sought to decolonize practice and education? How can communities who have endured historical and present-day structural oppression be leaders in determining what methods and practices foster resilience, stoke resistance and ameliorate suffering?
It is critical to note that “decolonizing” has become a buzzword that is being used too liberally to encompass any social justice work (Tuck & Yang, Citation2012) within and beyond social work. Indigenous scholars like Tuck (Tuck & Yang, Citation2012) teach us that decolonization should be about repatriation of land from settlers to Indigenous peoples. We honor this essential meaning and in no way want to dilute its power. We hope that we are using the term “decolonizing” in a way that augments its translational value without diminishing its essential meaning and remain open to critique regarding this choice. Authors in this issue define, clarify and distinguish the terms and constructs of colonialism, decolonizing, uncolonizing, coloniality and decoloniality. They also explore and suggest multiple pathways through which we might move toward decolonizing the practice and education of clinical social work. While recognizing the limits and problematics of using the word “decolonizing,” we have used quotation marks for the word to invite how scholars and practitioners – both Indigenous and non-Indigenous might conceptualize and implement how clinical social work can be “decolonized” from their respective positionalities.
Realizing the limitations of our ability to dismantle coloniality from the inside of the academy, we worked to create a process and a platform that would open up space for a mix of voices wrestling with these issues to offer their insights and learning. We invited Black, Indigenous and other people of color (BIPOC) practitioners, scholars, and researchers we know to be grappling with these challenges to this special issue. As an editorial team, we continually asked ourselves how our own process and the usual practices of a scholarly journal was enacting coloniality, for example, through reenacting the systems of power and control, reifying western, Eurocentric ways of knowing and being. We engaged in critical reflective discussion toward practicing decoloniality by interrogating how coloniality might be embedded within us and the academic publishing system, and maintaining intentionality in how we could unlearn taken-for-granted practices (e.g., Smith & Mak, in this issue). Our discussions were dynamic, differentially experienced based on our intersectional positionalities and belief systems and were fruitful leading to collective, yet likely imperfect, decisions aligned with our intentions to practice decoloniality.
For this special issue, we chose an open, peer-review process over a double-masked process generally practiced across social work journals. We located two arms-lengths subject experts (i.e., they have not previously published with the authors) for each article and asked them to review the manuscript. Authors and reviewers were told who was reviewing and who authored the manuscripts, respectively. Concerns about the unintentional consequences of an open process on the scholars, practitioners and researchers involved – as authors and as reviewers – were carefully considered. Recognizing the power dynamics of academia and social work as a profession, it was not only possible, but likely that enactments of power over and silencing of critical voices would occur. In hopes of mitigating these possibilities, we invited authors to suggest potential reviewers of their manuscript, while the editorial team also sought additional reviewers, prioritizing those from BIPOC communities, based on their demonstrated work and interest in this project. We divided ourselves into “managing editors:” being responsible for several manuscripts and working closely with associated authors and reviewers. Reviewers were invited to share any thoughts, questions or concerns to the authors through the managing editor. We recognized this might further position us as gatekeepers rather than facilitators of conversation. Thus, on some occasions, we invited authors and reviewers to communicate directly with each other. The publication process for this special issue nonetheless involved steps common to academic publishing, such as invitation/submission, peer-reviews, and the editor’s decision (i.e., acceptance, revision, rejection). The process is laden with power dynamics in relation to knowledge creation, expression, language, and process. We have – sometimes successfully and other times unsuccessfully – aimed to treat these processes and dynamics with care, reflexivity and critical attention to the power we wield by virtue of the editorial positions we hold for this special issue. This involved us actively noticing, reflecting on, naming, and discussing our ideas, questions, concerns and decisions as an editorial team (see Kang & O’Neill, Citation2018; O’Neill & Fariña, Citation2018 about the critical conversation model employed here).
Introduction to the special issue
The articles encompassed in this special issue demonstrate not only how essential it is to challenge the embedded coloniality of clinical social work as a professional discipline, but how intellectually and collectively excavating the roots of colonization and coloniality requires actively practicing decoloniality (Mignolo & Walsh, Citation2018). The contributing authors define colonization, coloniality, decolonization and decoloniality in sociocultural, historical and global contexts (Jemal et al.,; Kamya; McCubbin et al.,; Smith & Mak; Werkmeister Rozas), apply these processes to the profession of social work education (King et al.; McCubbin et al.; Okuda; PROP Collective; Smith & Mak; Werkmeister Rozas), clinical work (Asakura et al.,; Mak), social work practice more broadly (McKinley, Cahill, & Kumaria; Ortega-Williams et al.; Williams), and current legislative manifestations (McKinley, Cahill, & Kumaria). The articles range in approach, ideology, and in how much of the system authors are trying to dismantle and from different positionalities; however, all of the contributors and editors are committed to decolonizing/uncolonizing social work education and practice.
We, the managing editors, introduce ourselves along with the particular articles and authors with whom we worked below.
Kenta Asakura: I had the pleasure to work with two groups of authors on the articles submitted to this special issue. As a transnational and transcultural queer person of color, I immediately felt a strong resonance to and appreciation for their work, which intentionally and unapologetically centers the lived experiences and the rich history and knowledge of Indigenous and other marginalized communities. McCubbin and colleagues, Indigenous educators and those committed to supporting Indigenous students and practitioners, share an important educational practice grounded in Indigenous ways of knowing. Hui (means a gathering in Hawaiian) created among Indigenous students, educators and practitioners represents the practice of counter-storytelling as a practice of decolonization and indigenization of higher education and professional training of mental health. King and colleagues, a racially diverse group of educators from Western Canada, share the development of an anti-racial and anti-colonial praxis course. What is particularly unique about this course is the educators’ continuous engagement with local Indigenous and other racialized communities in the development of the teaching materials and assignments, including the students’ collaboration with Indigenous and other racialized youths to develop action plans. Both articles provide theoretically sound, practical ideas for how social work educators might engage in the practices of “decolonizing” by centering the strengths, knowledge and beauty of Indigenous and other marginalized communities.
Joshua Miller: As an older, able-bodied, heterosexual, white, cis-gender man, who is ethnically Jewish, I have often been at the privileged heart of the colonial matrix of knowing and doing, while consciously and intentionally attempting to undermine this centrality through my writing, teaching and how I have tried to live my life. It has been a tremendous privilege to work with the authors of the articles for which I was the managing editor. Asakura and colleagues have contributed a stimulating article, using simulation-based research methods to identify ways that clinical social work can be practiced while informed by critical theory, focusing on specific skills. Smith and Mak present a model – Trajectory of Awareness – that social work educators can intentionally apply to counter anti-Black racism utilizing a decolonial perspective. Werkmeister Rozas uses the conceptual lens of coloniality and decoloniality to pedagogically challenge the “four pillars” of White Supremacy: Patriarchy, Capitalism, and Christianity that shape so much of social work teaching and practice, offering a range of transformative perspectives and provides a case example of how this can look in the classroom. Williams radically and forcefully offers a Black Love and Care perspective, asking “what becomes possible … when the needs, dreams and abundance of Blackness and Black people are tended to and affirmed,” introducing concepts, and reworking language and narrative styles in her article, leading to a “reimagined clinical social work lens.”
Ora Nakash: As a Mizrahi-Jewish woman who grew up in Israel and dedicated my professional career to promoting equity and eliminating mental health service disparities in Israel and the US, it has been an honor and privilege to work directly with authors of four contributions to this special issue. Witnessing the emergence of innovative ideas and voices interrogating and dismantling clinical practices and offering new perspectives on clinical social work practice and education has been a profoundly humbling and enriching experience. Ortega-Williams and her colleagues explore the function of colorism and historical trauma among racialized and historically marginalized clinical social workers, a topic that has received little attention in the literature and offer important implications to practice and training. Kamya examines the impact of colonialism on mental health service delivery in Uganda, and suggests strategies for dismantling colonial structures, presenting an African-Centered approach that centers on indigenous values and beliefs. Mak reflects on decolonization and its implications in the school system and the ways in which clinical social workers may become complicit in dominant ideas around academic achievement. She uses the metaphors of dance to highlight the role of school-based relationships in disrupting colonial structures and practices. McKinley, Cahill, and Kumaria grapple with the timely question of how social work educators and practitioners should respond to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. By applying a Reproductive Justice framework to the Council for Social Work Education Competencies, they pinpoint specific areas within micro, mezzo, and macro-level social work practice where professionals can actively disrupt patterns of reproductive oppression, including restrictions and bans on abortion.
Peggy O’Neill: As a white, heterosexual, middle aged, fully able, cis woman, I continually practice identifying, unpeeling, examining and critically reflecting on the ways in which the structural world of coloniality and systemic power dynamics are at play on interpersonal levels – through me and in relation among others. My work centers the cultivation of critical consciousness through dialogue, decision making and action, and its power in education and practice. It has been a deep honor for me to work with the authors of three articles included in this special issue. Responding to the harms of academic and practice settings on the lives of Black and Indigenous Women of Color (BIWOC), Jemal and colleagues build upon her framework of Critical Transformative Potential Development and offer an emergent model of Soulcial Work Praxis. They describe their transformative experience of a healing circle, a community and soul building approach for BIWOC to heal from the harms of coloniality and white supremacy in higher education and clinical practice settings. They powerfully demonstrate ways in which they collectively shifted “the site of wounding to be a site of healing” (p. 29), offering hope for others seeking such a process. Okuda speaks from her extensive professional and personal experience as a director of practicum learning in social work education and calls out the complicity of practicum directors and administrators in perpetuating oppressive practices and inequities. In so doing, she explores ways to engage these realities and complexities and calls on and compels social work practicum directors to urgently engage pathways of change. The PROP (power, race, oppression, and privilege) Collective – a diverse group of faculty, alumni and students who collectively engaged in the creation of the PROP framework and iterative development of a required foundations course on decolonizing social work – begin their powerful piece with a land acknowledgment and action commitment. Throughout their article, the authors describe and demonstrate ways they continually alter their teaching and practice to incorporate and live anti-racist and liberatory approaches and beliefs. They aim to center the voices of Black people, persons indigenous to the Americas, and non-Black people of color. Audio and text-based narratives are embedded within the article bringing the range of voices, experiences, and learnings to life for the reader.
We acknowledge the precarious position of power and control in our selection process. We see this special issue as a sliver of an opening and hope it will be widened and deepened through dialogue, scholarship, teaching, and necessarily bringing in many more voices, including those who engage with social work (people/communities often called clients, consumers, partners, associates, participants). We will continue to do what we can and look forward to a range of people differently situated – clients, students, practitioners, community members, healers, political leaders, spiritual guides and many more- and who are using a range of mediums (academic journals, podcasts, installations, art, collective public dialogue, etc.) to raise our collective knowledge and consciousness toward determined actions to challenge dominant narratives and the matrix of colonial power. We are all in this together and responding collectively, in a multitude of ways, is the most effective way of resisting, liberating and achieving equity and justice.
Message from the editor-in-chief
Since 1930, Smith College Studies in Social Work (“Smith Studies”) has played a crucial role in the field of clinical social work. It has consistently advanced vital knowledge and practices, leading to the strengthening of clinical social work as a specialized area of practice. The current Special Issue is no exception. It encompasses a diverse range of ideas, processes, and practices of “decolonizing” that align with the journal’s mission. Over the past nine decades, the editorial team of Smith Studies has witnessed many changes in the field of clinical social work – from social work’s long standing relationship with psychoanalysis, the adoption of feminist approaches, the discussions of cultural competence, the rise of empiricism in clinical practice (i.e., evidence-based practice), to the shift toward a racially and socially just approach, just to name a few. In order to maintain our leadership in the dynamic field of clinical social work, we felt that a new journal title was warranted to better reflect the breadth of research and knowledge from a wider and more diverse community. Starting in 2024, Smith Studies will be renamed as Studies in Clinical Social Work: Transforming Practice, Education and Research. Over the past year, the journal’s Editorial Advisory Board and I have worked closely with the team at Taylor & Francis to identify ways to more accurately represent our identity and vision as a leading journal of clinical social work. It is important to note that, despite the name change, our core identity will not change. The journal will remain focused on and committed to clinical social work and will continue its affiliation with Smith College School for Social Work. As the new title signifies, we aspire to canvas research and scholarly work not only focused on clinical practice but also on clinical education and research from a broader social work community. I am immensely grateful for your ongoing support and look forward to embarking on this new journey with you. Your commitment and contributions are invaluable to our scholarly community. Thank you for being a part of this exciting new chapter!
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
- Brave Heart, M. Y. H. (1998). The American Indian holocaust: Healing historical unresolved grief. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 8(2), 56. https://doi.org/10.5820/aian.0802.1998.60
- Canda, E. R., Furman, L. D., & Canda, H.-J. (2019). Spiritual diversity in social work practice: The heart of helping (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Carter, R. T., & Pieterse, A. L. (2021). Measuring the effects of racism. Columbia University Press.
- Clarke, K., & Yellow Bird, M. (2021). Decolonizing pathways towards integrative healing in social work. ( LCCN 2020018233). Routledge.
- Fanon, F. (1963). The wretched of the earth. Grove Publishing.
- Fook, J. (2016). Social work: A critical approach to practice (3rd ed.). Sage.
- Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury Press.
- Gone, J. P. (2021). The (Post)colonial predicament in community mental health services for American Indians: Explorations in alter-native psy-ence. American Psychologist, 76(9), 1514–1525. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000906
- Gray, M., Coates, J., Yellow Bird, M., & Hetherington, T. (Eds.). (2013). Decolonising social work. Routledge.
- Gruber, T. (2023). Beyond mandated reporting: Debunking assumptions to support children and families. Abolitionist Perspectives in Social Work, 1(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.52713/apsw.v1i1.12
- Heberle, A. E., Obus, E. A., & Gray, S. A. O. (2020). An intersectional perspective on the intergenerational transmission of trauma and state-perpetrated violence. Journal of Social Issues, 76(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12404
- Hemphill, P. (2022). Collected works. Retrieved from https://prentishemphill.com/collectedworks
- Jemal, A. (2017). Critical consciousness: A critique and critical analysis of the literature. The Urban Review, 49(4), 602–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-017-0411-3
- Joseph, A. J. (2014). A prescription for violence: The legacy of colonization in contemporary forensic mental health and the production of difference. Critical Criminology, 22(2), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-013-9208-1
- Kang, H. K., & O’Neill, P. (2018). Constructing critical conversations: Building the scaffold for reflection and action. Journal of Social Work Education, 54(1), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2017.1341857
- Lee, M. Y., Ng, S.-M., Leung, P. P. Y., & Chan, C. (2018). Integrative body-mind-spirit social work: An empirically based approach to assessment and treatment (Second ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Mignolo, W. D., & Walsh, C. E. (2018). On coloniality: Concepts, analytics, praxis. Duke University Press.
- Miller, J. L. (2012). Psychosocial capacity building in response to disasters. Columbia University Press.
- Miller, J. L. (2023). Psychosocial responses to sociopolitical targeting, oppression and violence: Challenges for helping professionals. Routledge.
- Mullen, J. (2023). Decolonizing therapy: Oppression, historical trauma, and politicizing your practice. ( ISBN: 978-1-324-01916-9). W.W. Norton and Company.
- O’Neill, P. (2015). Applying critical consciousness and evidence-based practice: A framework for clinical social work practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 51(4), 624–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2015.1076285
- O’Neill, P., & Fariña, M. (2018). Constructing critical conversations in social work supervision: Creating change. Clinical Social Work Journal, 46(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-018-0681-6
- Ortega-Williams, A., Beltran, R., Schultz, K., Henderson, Z. R., Colon, L., & Teyra, C. (2021). An integrated historical trauma and posttraumatic growth framework: A cross-cultural exploration. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 22(21), 220–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2020.1869106
- Roberts, D. (2020 6/16). Abolishing Policing Also Means Abolishing Family Regulation. International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering. https://imprintnews.org/child-welfare-2/abolishing-policing-also-means-abolishing-family-regulation/44480.
- Roberts, D. (2022). Torn apart: How the child welfare system destroys black families and how abolition can build a safer world. Basic Books.
- Rodriguez, T. (2020, December 26). Decolonization, A Guidebook for Settlers Living on Stolen Land. Global Decolonization Imitative Rise Up.https://gdiriseup.medium.com/decolonization-a-guidebook-for-settlers-living-on-stolen-land-57d4e4c04bbb.
- Summerfield, D. (2004). Cross cultural perspectives on the medicalization of human suffering. In G. Rosen (Ed.), Posttraumatic stress disorder: Issues and controversies (pp. 233–247). John Wiley.
- Tascón, S., & Ife, J. (2019). Disrupting whiteness in social work. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978042928418
- Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40.
- Wariboko, N. (2018). Colonialism, christianity, and personhood. In W. H. Worger, C. Ambler, & N. Achebe (Eds.), A companion to African history, first edition (pp. 50–75). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.