Abstract
Since the middle of the 1990s, ‘difference’ has been a subject dealt with intensively in international social work theory. Migration and gender studies especially have drawn attention to the fact that clients of social work are not only ‘different’, but ‘differently different’. Our article presents three prominent approaches to difference in social work: neglect of the other, recognition of the other (by emphasizing the necessity of identity) and the deconstruction of differences between the other and the non-other (by reading the powerfulness of binary structured differences).
Since the middle of the 1990s, the subject of ‘difference’ has been dealt with intensively in international social work theory (Fawcett et al., 1999; Garett, 2002; Lamp, 2007). In social work studies, at least two sources can be identified which have led to this ‘discovery of difference’. First, questions of cultural variety and differences have arisen in debates included under the heading of ‘postmodernism’ (Bauman, 1997; Lyotard, 1984), an intellectual movement which has raised the consciousness of the inevitability of the experience of difference (Welsch, 1991: 5). As a result of the weakness of knowledge and the diversification of life models, social work has been obliged to deal with the topic of difference and thereby with insecurity and ambivalence (Fook and Pease, 1999). Postmodern theories affirm the non-dissolvability of otherness; they demand that differences be accepted and protected.
Second, analysis carried out on the work of social movements has indicated that differences are constituted in relations of power and dominance. Migration and gender studies in particular have drawn attention to the fact that the users of social work are not only ‘different’, but also ‘differently different’ (Lutz and Wenning, 2001). At this point the discourse is not merely concerned with ‘difference’ – ‘Otherness’ is introduced. For instance, the German women’s movement has emphasized that social work disregards the interests and needs of girls. In addition, intercultural and integrative concepts refer to the inequality and exclusions of migrants or people with disabilities. Thus, political discussions about the interdependences of difference and power have influenced (post)feminist social work studies (Van den Bergh, 1995; Wendt and Boylan, 2008), intercultural social work studies (Laird, 2008; Thyer et al., 2010) and disability studies (Johnstone, 2001; Yuen et al., 2007).
Our article sketches the current social work discussion about ‘otherness’ and presents three prominent approaches to difference: first, the neglect of ‘the Other’ (in terms of equality); second, the recognition of ‘the Other’ (i.e. emphasizing the necessity of identity); and third, the deconstruction of difference between ‘the Other’ and ‘the Non-other’ (i.e. reading the power of binary-structured differences). By referring to a case study, we intend to point out problems and dilemmas specific to each concept and will consider whether these dilemmas form part of social work. Our discussion on the question of difference and otherness is guided by an interest in investigating social work practices in terms of their power effects; in other words to examine situations where approaches to difference limit people’s scope of action.
Moreover, as far as we can see, there is no approach to otherness that is able to avoid the epistemological, symbolic and social effects of power. Accordingly, reflection cannot be suspended.
Case study: ‘Moustafa’
The case study we present takes place in a German youth centre, which is a social service aimed at boys and girls aged between 12 and 20 years of age. During the course of the day, the youth centre staff write down the names of all the young people who attend with the aim of obtaining an overview of the attendees. At first, the staff registered the names of the visitors without making any distinction between them. After a while, however, the social workers started to write down the girls and boys separately with the idea of ascertaining whether the service is also being utilized by girls. Later still, mostly as a result of multicultural debates, the social workers introduced the feature of ‘native/foreign’ into the record-keeping. This differentiation is designed to determine how many migrants use the facility. The specific situation described here is the following: Moustafa, the 16-year-old son of Moroccan immigrants, enters the youth centre. One of the social workers sees him and takes his name down on the list in the category ‘male’ and ‘foreign’. Moustafa notices this and, grinning, pulls out his German identity card and says ironically: ‘Wrongly registered. I am proud to be a German’ – a statement that in Germany is, on account of the national socialist past, very afflicted and rather a slogan of the neo-fascist groups. What approaches to difference does the example reveal? And what are the problems with these approaches?
Ignoring differences
If one takes a closer look at the pedagogical process at the youth centre, one can see the development from a former state of neglect of social differences to an increasing sensitivity to differences. This development has been characteristic of the pedagogical assessment of differences since the 1980s. Nevertheless, ignorance is still present in the practices – especially so in the attitudes of social workers (e.g. expressed in the oft-heard sentence ‘to me all clients are equal’) – in institutional arrangements, in concepts or in the ongoing neglect of multilingualism.
As we can see from this case study, the differences between the young visitors to the youth centre in terms of their cultural backgrounds and their gender-related interests have not always been recognized. Feminist educators, for instance, have criticized German youth work for its blindness towards the interests and needs of girls. Jugendarbeit is Jungenarbeit – ‘Youth work is boys work’ – is the accusation levelled at youth work by many feminist social workers (Marburger, Klees and Schumacher, 2007), who allege that activities are aimed only at the interests and needs of boys.
Intercultural studies, however, reveal that youth work is not responsive to the living conditions of immigrant youth, for example to experiences of racism (Dominelli, 2008; Laird, 2008). Therefore adherents to the so-called colour-blind view, who favour the equality and non-discrimination of all subjects, have been criticized for ignoring the privileges and power relations linked to difference categories, such as race or ethnicity, and thus to negate social injustice on structural and institutional levels (Carr, 1997; Dominelli, 2008). Furthermore, the neglect of differences has been criticized for concealing power relations and for taking the dominant white male model as a neutral and universal indicator. Judged against the norms of the majority, the ‘otherness’ of the ‘others’, their strategies, capabilities and social characteristics, becomes a deficiency. Justice, which is the credo of difference-related attempts, does not happen if a general equality is assumed. This means that the demand for equality without the consideration of differences leads not to equality, but to inequality and disadvantage.
The criticism of the ignorance of differences and otherness has led to the conclusion that the recognition of difference is not only significant but also unavoidable. ‘Recognition of difference’ is, therefore, the catchphrase that has been used to demand and conceptualize justice in social work discourse since the 1980s (Honneth, 1995; Prengel, 1993). The recording practice used in the youth centre is an example of the increasing sensitivity towards social differences. It reveals that the recognition of social differences has become a new key concept, which mobilizes the demand for the acknowledgement of individuals’ different lifestyles, problems and resources. As a further consequence, feminist and intercultural approaches have developed special social work concepts such as ‘partiality’, ‘solidarity’ and ‘empowerment’ (Dominelli, 2002; Gutierrez, 1997). They have also established special facilities, such as women’s refuges, helplines for girls and feminist or intercultural counselling.
The philosopher Axel Honneth (1995) points out that the recognition of difference refers not only to the physical integrity or the moral accountability of the other, but also to the specific qualities and abilities of the individual. Recognition has to be understood here as a directed recognition, as a recognition that refers to particular social characteristics such as specific skills or ways of thinking. On this basis, theories of recognition plead for a regulation of public matters which would enable the agency of all individuals. They argue for structures in which it is possible for individuals to live and also to change their social subject status. In general, attempts that refer to the idea of recognition have three basic goals: the recognition of the subject in the educational situation; the recognition of the concrete and generalized subject in his or her everyday world; and a contribution to a general culture of recognition (Stojanow, 2006). In social work, the approach of recognition has led to a cultural pluralism which encourages different cultural patterns and recognizes other cultural identities through exchange and mutual understanding (Auernheimer, 1996; Cox and Ephross, 1998).
Recognition of differences – some problems
Although the powerfulness of social difference still has an impact, international social work theory since the 1990s has taken a critical look at the effects of recognizing approaches to difference. In the field of gender studies, for example, an argument has arisen that the practice of recognition reproduces and confirms differences. In addition, elements of feminist theory have been criticized for ignoring the variety within gender and creating stigmatization (Fawcett et al., 1999). This problem arises from the fact that as soon as subjects are recognized and treated as female, foreign or gay, for example, they will be (re)produced as ‘other’. For example, as we can see in our case study, the effort to recognize differences between the clients of social work also produces stereotypes about immigrants and about the appearance of ‘native’ Germans. As soon as Moustafa is registered as foreign, he is stereotyped as ‘other’. Hence, the demand for recognition becomes questionable, because the recognition of differences (re)produces differences and otherness. Moreover, it is the binary logic itself, that is, the idea of an unequivocal and essential difference between one and the other, between ‘native’ and ‘foreign’, that produces and confirms inequalities and power relations in the first place. The analysis of the problems which result from the recognition of difference is pursued mainly from deconstructive understandings of difference, which focus on the problematic effects that accompany the recognition and representation of differences and argue for new political approaches to difference (Butler, 1998; Hall and du Gay, 1996).
Deconstructive understandings of difference
The deconstructive perspective is consequently not about the identification and recognition of difference, but rather about the analysis of the political effects of affirming approaches to difference. As Marysia Zalewski has pointed out, a theory of recognition asks the question, ‘In the face of what is, what shall we do?’. In contrast, a deconstructive approach would ask, ‘In the face of what we do, what becomes?’. Or, to put it another way, what are the effects of the practices (Zalewski, 2000: 122)?
For ‘post-feminist’ philosopher Judith Butler, an affirmative reference to difference can cause trouble. She points out that unquestioned references to ‘women’ or ‘gays’ confirm and stabilize the idea of a binary and clearly determinable difference between men and women, between ‘hetero- and homosexual’ (Butler, 1990). This means that the acknowledgement of marginalized identities includes the recognition of the symbolic order which produces the binary differentiation and therefore reproduces inequalities. Thus, for deconstructive approaches, it is not only the neglect of difference or the discrimination against those in minor positions that is the problem; rather, the distinction itself, following a binary and excluding logic, raises problems. Since any recognition of difference takes place in a culture of dominance (Dominelli, 2008; Rommelspacher, 1995), a non-reflective recognition of differences will reproduce these structures of power and inequality.
In deconstructive theories difference is not an objective fact but a dynamic process (Butler, 1993). Referring to our case study, we can see that only in a symbolic order, only by being addressed as ‘foreign’ – here in the interactions with the social workers – is Moustafa produced as ‘other’. Therefore, differences can be understood as a result of differentiations between ‘us’ and ‘non-us’. In referring to the recollections of the philosopher Frantz Fanon (1967) in his book Black Skin, White Masks, Stuart Hall (1994: 73) describes the process of becoming ‘black’ and ‘other’ through being addressed as ‘black’ and ‘other’. Walking along a street as a young boy, Fanon noticed a child pointing at him and saying to his mother: ‘Look, a Negro! Maman, a Negro!’ Fanon’s experience shows how he was produced as ‘black’, and his experience also reveals that the construction of difference cannot in itself be understood as being without limitations. In the binary system the only legitimated variations of self-presentation are those that are unequivocal. The construction of difference occurs in a strict system of ‘either/or’: one is either male or female, one is either ‘native’ or ‘foreign’, one is either ‘white’ or ‘black’. Divergences from the norm are either strictly sanctioned or at least – as in the case of Moustafa, who challenges the idea of what a German looks like – lead to annoyance or questions (such as the question: ‘But where do you really come from?’).
Instead of a politics of recognition and representation, one can therefore plead for a deconstructive approach in terms of which the problems of binary differentiation are highlighted and the dilemmas of the recognition of difference are disclosed (Butler, 1998). While current approaches to difference call for the recognition of otherness, deconstructive attempts show the effects that result from the engagement for the recognition of women and girls, or of homosexuals and migrants. They try to highlight those norms and exclusions that are produced by attempts to identify and to recognize differences. In our case study, however, the deconstructive strategy is not highlighted by the social worker but by the juvenile, by Moustafa.
With his reaction, the producing of his identity card which identifies him as German and by referring ironically to the nationalistic idea of being ‘proud to be German’, Moustafa deconstructs the violent symbolic order that distinguishes clearly between ‘foreign’ and ‘local’. He disturbs the image of the oppositionally structured patterns of natural difference. Moreover, he questions the idea of binary contrasts by unfolding what is suppressed by the construction of difference, what is idealized and organized into hierarchy and, finally, what is excluded by the reference to the patterns of ‘native’ and ‘foreign’. Moustafa unveils the implicit logic of the distinction between ‘native’ and ‘foreign’, namely the still dominant social policy of the jus sanguinis, the ‘right of blood’, by which citizenship is not determined by the place of birth but by having an ancestor who is a national or a citizen of the state. Thus, article 116 of German basic law confers a right to citizenship upon any person who is admitted to Germany as a refugee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such a person.
Since January 2000, children of immigrants who are born in Germany have the possibility of attaining German nationality if their parents fulfil certain legal conditions. However, as soon as the children reach legal adulthood, they must decide on one nationality. German politicians explain this with the argument that the possession of two or even more nationalities could cause conflicts of loyalty. So Moustafa is referring to this powerful order which produces racist ideas about affiliation and which implies that a German does not look like Moustafa. This implicit prohibitive norm is revealed by Moustafa’s deconstructive strategy. Thus, as we see, deconstructive strategies include a critical approach to differences by challenging the symbolic order itself and by disentangling identities from dichotomous logics (Bhabha, 2004; Nicholson and Seidman, 1995). The deconstruction of difference is the criticism of an unquestioned, non-reflective recognition of difference.
Consequences for social work theory and practice
Because social work adjusts and reproduces the dominant orders and exclusions, deconstructive approaches to otherness motivate social workers towards a critical analysis of norms, concepts, and rules and research (Burke and Clifford, 2008; Fawcett et al., 1999; Fook and Pease, 1999; Fritzsche et al., 2001). Deconstructive strategies question the undiscussed understandings about otherness, about what a girl, a German or a disabled person is expected to be. They make clear that any attempt to recognize otherness implies exclusions and that, with every definition of the ‘girls’, ‘the migrants’ or ‘the homosexuals’ differences within the groups will be concealed. For social work this shows the need to track down possible compulsions and standardizations in concepts, methods and institutional orders. Who are we referring to when we speak of women, men, foreigners or migrants? And whom do we exclude with our descriptions? Deconstruction assumes that power is constituted through discourses and that in consequence there always will be discourses that are not heard or that are silenced.
Another important consequence of the deconstructive approach to difference is the insight it gives into the participation of individuals in the performative production of differences – and consequently also in the reproduction of dominant structures. Hence, clients of social work, as well as the social workers themselves, can be comprehended as being actively engaged in the practical experiences of ‘doing difference’ (Fenstermaker and West, 2002). Now the actions, statements and self-images of children or adults are no longer seen as merely the passive effects of social structures, but as active strategies for presenting or removing categories of identity.
At the same time, social work facilities and social services should ask themselves how they are involved in processes of ‘doing difference’; what attributions they make and how they (re)produce differences and dominant structures by allocations, diagnoses and spatial settings. Against this background, deconstructive endeavours invite social work to draw its attention to practices that go beyond the hegemonial borders of linguistic and cultural belonging (Fook and Pease, 1999), to phenomena of multiple affiliation, like Moustafa. Deconstructive endeavours that are directed against the affirmation of the binary order are found mainly in postcolonial theories or migration research. Concepts like ‘hybridity’ (Ha, 2005) or ‘Borderlands’ (Anzaldúa, 1987) point to the decentralization, the fluidity and the indeterminability of (cultural) identities in the late modern age. Here, differences are less a given relation than a field ‘of disorder which one must strictly process further on which nothing is given once and for all’ (Hall, 1999: 104).
Finally, the deconstructive approach to otherness requires an attitude of non-knowledge. Non-knowledge does not mean to have no knowledge at all. Knowledge is important. In social work contexts that are pre-formed by difference in particular, a great deal of knowledge, for example a knowledge of the social structures of exclusion or a knowledge of the resources and rights of the clientele, is required. At the same time, however, it has to be noted that the knowledge about the other is neither innocent nor sufficient (Wimmer, 1996). By simply applying knowledge about others, for example by categorizing Moustafa as a foreigner or by indicating a behaviour as an expression of a cultural conflict or as a gender-specific problem, powerful meanings about the other are produced. However, an attitude of non-knowledge reminds one of the limits of knowledge (Wimmer, 1996). Social work based on a position of non-knowledge acknowledges the irreducible otherness of the other and tries to take care of this otherness by not only speaking about others but also, for example, by letting them speak for themselves. This means that social work has to be sensible to many ways of knowing, centred and located within diverse client life experiences.
Against the background of a deconstructive comprehension of difference, the questions to be asked in social work are the following: What are the norms that will be confirmed and reproduced by a social work pertaining to difference? In what way are these norms, in the first place, norms that cause and support problem areas and discrimination against recipients? What can social workers generally do to ensure that the Others will not be hurt by norms of social work practice? How, then, can the Others’ limiting conditions be shaped as less limiting (Butler, 2005)?
Problems of deconstructive approaches to Otherness
The radical theories of deconstruction offer a great intellectual attraction. However, one should be careful of a deconstructive idealization of displaced difference relations and an abandonment of categories of identity. Even though differences can no longer be understood as natural or unambiguous, it remains indisputable that symbolic difference orders produce discrimination and unequal access, resources and self-images. If the problem of the neglect of difference consists of the fact that it suppresses the other by not admitting otherness, deconstructive approaches tend to ignore the patterns by which people recognize themselves and others, and by which they are misjudged and ignored.
Although differences are the effects of social constructions, they are accompanied by the unequal distribution and estimation of resources, with disparate possibilities of participation and symbolic values. Thus, these affirmative references to difference not only serve to norm recipients, but also provide a framework for problematizing a lack of resources, discrimination and disadvantage. The reference to the societal differentiation practice of ‘foreign–local’ is thus not indispensible for social work if it wants to give Moustafa the opportunity to articulate experiences of exclusion and discrimination and – as is the case in social work – to advocate for the handling and mitigation of the effects of social difference practices.
In conclusion, deconstructive strategies allow, on the one hand, for the questioning of the binary frame of difference by indicating the violent character of this order and by advocating for life forms otherwise validated as unliveable. On the other hand, the demand for hybridity and indeterminabilty threatens to negate self-concepts and experiences that do not submit to the deconstructive ideal. Consequently, social work still has to provide possibilities for subjects to refer to identity categories and to have these recognized. Because ‘doing difference’ also means doing inequality (Fenstermaker and West, 2002), it is important to realize which material and symbolic resources are relevant and available to the individual (Fraser, 1997).
Conclusion
Social work that takes place in an environment preformed by differences (re)produces inequalities if such differences are not recognized. However, the recognition of differences reproduces power relations doubly: at first the recognition of the other classifies them as other and, as this otherness is an effect of a dominant order, the recognition of the other paradoxically confirms this hegemonial order. Thus, recognition as a practice of identification is always accompanied by the problem of determination and exclusion. This dilemma cannot be resolved as it forms the connection between difference and social work.
At the same time social work needs a critical approach to difference in order to minimize the effects of determination and normalization (Anhorn, Bettinger and Stehr, 2007; Fook, 2002). This deconstructive approach to difference heightens the awareness of the performative processes of producing difference within a binary order. The reflection of these norms, their critical positioning against such attempts that fix differences as natural, as well as a sensitivity for social phenomena in which current patterns are questioned and shifted, can be understood as important impulses for deconstructive approaches to difference. At the same time, the precarious relationship between the deconstructive position and the conditions of being capable of acting in everyday life must be considered. As a result, every social work strategy referring to difference and diversity deals with dilemmas. In this respect it is not about the question, ‘difference and otherness: yes, or no?’, but about an experience-related reflection of the ways differences are considered so that, as a result of those reflections, less power in terms of others is necessary.
This means specifically that social work should firstly reflect its conceptions of gender, sexuality, culture, ethnicity and other social differences. In order to treat Moustafa and other young people in a less discriminating, more recognizing way, intercultural and anti-racist training, ‘critical-whiteness’ (Yee, 2005) as well as gender training will be necessary. These measures, however, elucidate the way in which dominant structures, as well as exclusion and discrimination, are produced by social work practices, concepts and images (Dominelli, 1997). Because discrimination is not only characteristic of the institutional level of social work, but also concerns the everyday life of the clientele, social work should comprehend itself also as a critical and political practice in order to change the living conditions of its clients. Rather, a context-sensitive empowerment, strengthening the subjects, their needs and interests, should be implemented and should take up an important position in social work (Fook and Morley, 2005). It is therefore important to create structures in which subjects develop skills and dispositions that make them capable of acting in dominant contexts. However, within such an empowerment approach the reference to difference is often indispensable. If social work wants to give Moustafa the opportunity to articulate experiences of racism and discrimination, it may be inevitable that reference will be made to difference categories. Accordingly, the question arises as to whether the relevant categories (as in the case study) should be predetermined by the social workers or should be developed by the affected subjects themselves. Such ‘subject-orientated’ and participative youth work would allow young people to draw up a list and identify the relevant difference categories themselves. Furthermore, the discussions that might arise (e.g. on the question, which terminology will be appropiate and which categories are relevant for the list) could become part of a difference-sensible social work.
In as far as recognition always takes place along given social norms, social work can help to enable the youth to participate in linguistic and cultural life forms. However, a deconstructive approach to social work would have to move and expand these dominant affiliations which regulate the intelligibilty of subjects. Thus, Moustafa’s lifeworld contexts, his self-image, his experiences and his needs would not turn out to be the results of a ‘foreign-being’ but the effects of a hierarchical and binary organized social order, which means by being constructed as a foreigner – also by social work.
Hence, a deconstructive informed social work is prompted to reflect when referring to differences in the way it neglects the social production of these very differences and rather determines the perception of the differences as ‘given’ and ‘natural’. Social work should have the task of opening up spaces for articulations and representations that do not correspond with this binary order – such as Moustafa’s. At the same time, a deconstructive social work has to track down such narrowings, norms and limitations which constrain the capabilities, articulations and representations of the subjects. Thus, Moustafa’s response to the classification practice in the case study could be taken as an opportunity for a critical questioning of the binary scheme of ‘foreign’ and ‘native’ or otherwise, having it developed by the young people themselves. The aim of such a deconstructive practice is to change those institutional structures and social norms that regulate the intelligibility and the capabilities of the subjects. Recognition of Moustafa can therefore also mean deconstructing those norms that prevent recognition (e.g. what Germans look like). Thus the current efforts involving heroin prescription, the critique of the category ‘foreigner’ or the queering of heteronormative standards in counselling (Moon, 2008) can be understood as examples of deconstructive approaches to differences, which are not just about adapting the clientele to a social norm or a recognition of their different life styles, but also about a reduction of such discriminations, disadvantages and exclusions based on differentiations (e.g. legal and illegal drugs, foreigners and natives, heterosexuals and homosexuals) in the first place.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author biographies
Melanie Plößer, Dr. phil., Professor for Theory of Social Work and Gender at the Department of Social Work and Health at the University of Advanced Science Kiel. Key Topics: Approaches to Difference and Otherness in Social Work, Gender and Queer Studies. Besides her scientific activity, she has worked as a pedagogue in the fields of youth work and drug counselling.
Paul Mecheril, Dr. phil., Professor for Intercultural Education and Social Change, Department for Educational Science at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Main interests: Migration and Pedagogy, Racism, Cultural Studies. Some Publications (Books): Introduction into Migration and Education (Einführung in die Migrationspädagogik ; 2004); The Power of Languages (Die Macht der Sprachen; 2006; ed. with Thomas Quehl); Cultural Studies and Pedagogy (Cultural Studies und Pädagogik; 2006; ed. with Monika Witsch); The Normality of Racism (Die Normalität des Rassismus; 2008; ed. with Anne Broden); Politics of Impurity (Politik der Unreinheit; 20092); Migration and Education (Migrationspädagogik; 2010: with Maria do Mar Castro Varela, Inci Dirim, Annita Kalpacka, Claus Melter), Education-Power-Differences (Bildung-macht-unterschiede; 2011, ed. with Reingard Spannring and Susanne Arens).