Ethics in a World of Difference

Abstract

International statements about social work ethics have been criticized as imposing Western values in non-Western contexts. Two forms of this criticism can be identified in recent literature, one ‘strong’ in that it calls for each cultural context to generate its own relevant values, the other ‘qualified’ in that while it seeks basic common values it calls for these to be interpreted with cultural sensitivity. Such arguments raise a particular problem with the notion of human rights as a foundation for social work ethics. In response, the plurality of values is examined and the concept of ‘human capabilities’ is suggested as a basis for values that cross cultural differences. The implications of this notion are explored using the example of responses to domestic violence. It is suggested that such an approach could be fruitful as a basis for future international dialogue concerning social work ethics.

Keywords:

• Ethics
• Values
• Culture
• Indigenization
• Internationalization
• Human Rights
• Capabilities

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank colleagues from many parts of the world for the challenge and support they have given me in thinking about these issues. First and foremost the argument presented here has benefited from discussions with Sarah Banks, who also made some very helpful suggestions about an earlier draft. I have discussed various aspects of these ideas with Otrude Moyo, Mehmoona Moosa-Mitha, James Midgely, Tracie Mafile'o and Lena Dominelli. Some aspects of this discussion were presented at a seminar to the School of Applied Social Sciences, University of Durham. This final version has also benefited from the considered advice of two anonymous reviewers.

Notes

¹The IFSW is the international peak body that brings together the national professional social work associations of each country. Founded in 1956, it represents social work in many forums and has reporting status at the United Nations (Healy 2001). The IFSW website can be accessed at <http://www.ifsw.org>.

²The IASSW is the international peak body for educational institutions, educators and national associations of social work education. The IASSW website can be accessed at <http://www.iassw-aiets.org>.

³The Definition of Social Work was accepted by the IFSW in 2000 and then ratified by the IASSW in 2001.

⁴I acknowledge that this term has recently been subject to debate, concerning whether it should be applied only to social work with ‘indigenous’ peoples as now defined by the United Nations, who may also variously be known as ‘First Nations’ or ‘Aboriginal’. Here I am following the usage of the literature.

⁵Elsewhere, Healy also quotes Kofi Annan in a similar vein, that ‘it is never the people who complain about human rights as a western imposition, but their rulers’ (cited in Healy 2001, p. 151).

⁶This is an example of the way in which a culture can change. Yip (2004, p. 605) also notes in passing that Asian societies are shifting rapidly under processes of modernization, but he curiously puts this to one side and does not attend to the implications in his discussion of what he appears to see as ‘core’ Asian values. Yip's comment hints at the possibility that he may actually be addressing the difference between ‘traditionalist’ and ‘modernist’ values, but it is beyond the scope if this paper to investigate that point.

⁷Yip (2004, p. 604) characterizes the individualistic human rights perspective as ‘Christian’. However, although the origins of the notion can be seen in mediaeval Christian ideas about ‘natural law’ (Asad 2000, section 10) the ascription of a particular view to a whole religion is more complex. For example, other Christian teachings such as ‘husbands love your wives’ and ‘fathers do not make your children angry’ (Ephesians 5: 25; 6: 4), can be read as constraints on certain types of action, grounded in a sense of responsibility (of husbands and fathers) and not of rights (of wives and children). Recognizing this point may also direct our attention to the multiplicity of perspectives in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and so on (also see Sen 2001).

⁸For further evidence of the argument that domestic violence is widely condemned across cultures, see Nussbaum (2000).

⁹I do not have space here to deal with the point that some of these capabilities are natural goods that cannot be guaranteed by any society (health is a notable example). Nussbaum's response is that she is concerned with the social basis of these capabilities, and the interested reader should consult her defence of this notion.