Solving global problems through local solutions: a transcontinental dialogue between Asia and Europe (Guest Editorial)

Introduction

Over the past two decades, there has been much discussion and debate on social work being enmeshed in the context of globalisation (Dominelli, 2010; Lyons, 1999; Sajid et al., 2021). For better or worse, opportunities as well as threats in practice and education have helped trigger changes in this profession. However, globalisation is dated, as the metaverse is emerging. Such an exciting digital ecosystem is now providing the perfect type of soil for old problems such as inequality, discrimination, racism, violence, and mental illness, to name but a few, to be nurtured in a brand-new way (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2022). Although the concept of the nation-state is being either diminished or renovated, from the “good old Westphalian sovereignty” to the form of “late sovereignty” (Bartelson, 2006), using a transnational and even transcontinental lens to look at a problem (and possible solutions) is perhaps more crucial than ever, in light of the increasing level of geopolitical tensions, major power competitions among larger and/or smaller nations, and the emergence of technological advancements manipulated by state or nonstate actors. Three global problems were selected in this paper as a showcase for comparing how they were being perceived and/or “solved” in different geographical contexts, if not the nation-state.

Pandemic

Flynn (2020) considered COVID-19 a transnational problem in social work, but practitioners had not been well equipped to combat this pandemic (Cheung, 2020). The service users affected included children, young people, families, older adults, caregivers, immigrants, migrants, refugees, people in informal settlements, patients, survivors, health care workers, and other people in the workforce (Cheung, 2021). Among them, older adults are generally regarded as one of the most vulnerable groups (Kwan et al., 2021).

Huang and colleagues (2020) reported the case of Qinggang nursing home, which successfully achieved “zero infection” among residents and health care personnel amid the pandemic because of the adoption of a series of effective resilience strategies, e.g., all suspected cases being immediately isolated in a single room to avoid the spread of the virus. Another research team in China highlighted the need for some specific types of service delivery modes for older people in the community, as they were considered to be suffering heavily from the mobile digital divide. They might have encountered difficulties in using mobile phones to seek help through the internet. The team proposed a solution called “Net + SW” to enable older adults to access internet-based remote social work services via interactive TVs with larger screens and easier control (Wang et al., 2021).

In a similar vein, Pentaris and colleagues (2020) also considered the rights of older people in the context of COVID-19 but through a European perspective. They counterargued that older people should not always be perceived as a homogenous group because they are not necessarily weak, dependent, and at risk. This view might promote ageism by amplifying their vulnerability (if they have one) and denying their right to make autonomous decisions after the careful assessment of their own risks. More importantly, this might also overlook their strengths, resources, and invaluable contributions to the crisis situation, for instance, working voluntarily in health and social care roles or serving as caretakers in families. Pentini and Lorenz (2020) added that the spread of the virus might provide society with a “scientific” justification for making the isolation of older people be unavoidable since they were most at risk. It in turn jeopardised social solidarity and led to a profound crisis of public trust.

Digital harm

Kuss et al. (2021) reviewed the literature on internet addiction and investigated the cultural similarities and differences within extra-European regions. They found that studies were mainly from China, Japan, and South Korea, researching topics including internet addiction, internet gaming addiction, addiction to online gambling, online pornography, and social media addiction. The cognitive behavioural therapy approach was usually adopted to reduce addiction symptoms. Internet shutdown laws were introduced in several Asian countries, such as South Korea, China, and Vietnam, in response to public concerns over the excessive internet use of underage online game players. However, the effectiveness of these measures remains in question (Davies & Blake, 2016).

In contrast, Staub-Bernasconi (2017) reminded the European social work community to discard this “problematic” view of social phenomena, such as internet addiction, since this “problem” should not exist independent of the shared individual consciousness and communication between clients and their social interaction partners, e.g., social workers. This constructivist view might also align with the observation of Kuss et al. (2021) that when compared with the extra-European regions, “in Western countries, the diagnostic and clinical recognition of Gaming Disorder has seen a slower pace, leading to less developed and focused prevention approaches mostly developed by Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and private organisations” (p.2). In a study in the Netherlands (Rooij et al., 2011), it was indicated that the digital harm caused by online gaming might not be as bad as assumed. The psychosocial health of the group of addicted heavy online gamers differed only slightly from that of the nonaddicted heavy gamers and various other groups. In fact, Choi and colleagues (2018) analysed a sample of 243,957 Korean adolescents and examined the effect of the controversial gaming curfew on regulating adolescent internet use, addiction, and sleeping hours. The research team found that the internet shutdown policy that forbade young people from playing online video games between midnight and 6:00 am did not provide the intended preventive effects. This law was eventually abolished by the Korean government in 2021, ten years after it was first introduced in 2011.

Conflict

The world has entered a new era of competition and tension amid the shift from centred to decentred globalisation (Lavery & Schmid, 2021). The rise of geopolitical risk (Caldara & Iacoviello, 2022) is due to the emergence of illiberalism (Main, 2022), xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and violent extremism. More than 238,000 people died in 2022 due to global conflict, at least 82,000 of whom died in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War (Taylor, 2023). Blomqvist Mickelsson (2023) studied how Ukrainian refugees were being treated differently in Sweden vis-à-vis other refugee groups. He found that Ukrainian refugees were constructed as being “agentic, strong-minded, willing to contribute to the receiving society” (p.2). Nonetheless, they were also regarded as having higher deservingness in access to social services when compared with other refugee populations that were “relatively” lazier and culturally deviant. It created a hierarchy of victims that fostered “promising victimhood” and went against the social work mission of combating inequity. In fact, Swedish academics (Swanstrom & Bjornehed, 2004) had already studied transnational terrorism in Southeast Asia and explored the successful elements of conflict resolution two decades ago. They argued that successful conflict resolution lies in the extensive cooperation and coordination of states. For Bleiker and Brigg (2011), the Western approaches to conflict resolution have not always been as effective as they often fail to:

understand and adequately deal with conflict, particularly when cultural difference is at play. In a worst-case scenario, the ensuing conflict resolution practices are ineffective or even facilitate further conflict. The resulting imposition of Western values upon culturally diverse conflict situations can lead to a regime of domination that is resented by those who are subjected to its ethnocentric implications (pp. 1–2).

Problems of racism and White supremacy have significantly worsened after the COVID-19 pandemic (aka the “Two Pandemics”, “Double Pandemics”, or “Dual Pandemics”), in addition to the preexisting situations of xenophobia and ethnocentrism (Bright, 2020; Murray-Lichtman et al., 2022; Starks, 2021). To move forwards, not only should social work educators and students look for fresh perspectives and new politics around social justice (Gray & Webb, 2014), but practitioners should also contemplate the contemporary crisis in social work and realise the contextual distinctiveness of practice wisdom (Cheung, 2017, 2022) in this multipolar world.

Conclusion

The global order has been reshaped alongside geopolitical turbulence and geo-economic competition between nations, not to mention the increasing possibility of nuclear war. Novel technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) present exciting opportunities that revolutionise different industries but also risks of deepfakes and misinformation that promote radicalisation. Although Gray and Webb (2014) reminded social workers to stand together in solidarity, it has become more difficult than ever because of the rise of political and social decentralisation. Indeed, transnational and transcontinental dialogues among social work academics and practitioners have to be stimulated continuously despite hardship ahead. This editorial calls for a prudent reflection on the future development of European and international social work, especially for readers who are still eager to play a part in repairing this fractured global machine.