From housing campaign to multicultural understanding: The development of professional social work in Sámi areas in Norway

Abstract

This article focuses on the development of professional social work in Sámi areas in Norway after World War II, which coincides with the development of the welfare state. Labour immigration in the 1970s made Norway visible as a multicultural society and welfare professions adopted culturally sensitive methodology, which was also reflected in Sámi social work. Today’s criticism of multiculturalism requires new answers. The integration of the Sámi into the welfare system is an argument for why a decolonizing Sámi approach should build on the aim of post-colonialism in recognizing historical injustice and the emphasis in critical indigenous philosophy on dialogue.

Keywords

Cultural sensitivity decolonizing indigenous Sámi social work

Introduction

The United Nations (UN) defines the Sámi as an indigenous people living in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. The Sámi have been subjected to oppression and assimilation for centuries and this process of ‘norwegianization’ has led to many Sámi losing their language and cultural background. Two hunger strikes and demonstrations in 1979–1981 against building a hydroelectric dam on the Alta-Kautokeino River brought international attention to Sámi issues and ended the long assimilation period in Norway. The revolt forced the government to initiate several studies on Sámi rights, which resulted in the Sámi Act, Article 110a of the Norwegian Constitution, and the establishment of the Sámi Parliament and Sámi University College in 1989.

Today, there are estimated to be 50,000 Sámi in Norway, around 20,000 in Sweden, 7000–8000 in Finland and 2000–3000 in Russia. Although the Sámi are perceived as one people, there are differences in how the four nations deal with Sámi issues. Norway is the only nation that has ratified International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 (in 1990) concerning the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. Norway was also the first to establish a Sámi Parliament. The Norwegian government and the Sámi Parliament have also established a consultation agreement. Norway is at the forefront of the development of Sámi policy in most areas (Josefsen et al., 2015), and this experience provides important knowledge for the development of Sámi social work in the other three countries.

The modern Sámi rights struggle, including the development of Sámi social work, coincided with the post-war construction of the Norwegian welfare state and the reconstruction of the north Sámi settlement areas in Northern Norway after the burning and evacuation of the region by the Nazis. The research question addressed in this article is how the development of social work evolved in Sámi areas in Norway. To trace this development, I focus on four areas: the public focus on social problems, social work education, literature and research, and the organization of Sámi social workers. In this period, Norway also had to face another challenge. From 1960 to 1970, the number of foreigners in Norway more than doubled; most of these were ‘White’, but an increasing proportion of the labor migration from Turkey, Morocco and Pakistan challenged the authorities. In the beginning, they wanted to assimilate these foreign workers (Tjelmeland and Brochmann, 2003: 124). The turning point from assimilation to integration occurred with the Government Document on immigration (NOU, 1973: 17). Thus, Norway finally became a multicultural society. I say finally because it appeared to be forgotten that Norway also hosts an indigenous people. In this article, I discuss how this new multicultural approach influenced the focus on Sámi social work.

I also refer to the current criticisms of multiculturalism and the emergence of culturally sensitive methods that accompanied this perspective. Indigenous social workers are looking for alternative approaches and I hope that this article can contribute to this debate.

The development of social work in Sámi areas after World War II

The public focus on social problems

In 1956, a national committee began to examine Sámi issues to improve the health and social conditions of the Sámi population. This stimulated the education of Sámi-speaking health professionals and the access to information in the Sámi language (Samekomiteen, 1959). In the late 1950s, the national authorities conducted a housing campaign for reindeer Sámi in Finnmark, which later expanded to include all inhabitants in the Sámi areas in inner Finnmark (Jonassen, 1959). This campaign was followed up in 1962–1963 with a Government Document about cultural and economic issues among the Sámi (Stortingsmelding, 1962–1963). The report discussed the linguistic, cultural and economic challenges of the Sámi-speaking population, without separately discussing social issues and conditions. The proposal to strengthen social services with Sámi-speaking staff was first made in 1969 by a committee appointed by the Finnmark County governor (Fylkesmannen, 1969).

In 1995, a committee appointed by the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Social Affairs published a report on health and social services for the Sámi population in Norway (NOU, 1995: 6). This document formed the basis of the integration of the Sámi into the health and social services in Norway. The Ministry wanted a systematic review of Sámi health and social problems in relation to the existing welfare services. The report discussed whether the concept of rights provided legitimacy for special arrangements for the Sámi. The diversity of the Sámi culture was emphasized, as was the need for raising the general status of Sámi culture in Norway. The report discussed the welfare services for children, youth, the elderly, mental health, rehabilitation and working environment measures in reindeer husbandry. The committee focused on Northern Norway as a multicultural society and underlined that the field lacked basic theoretical and methodological knowledge. The report stated that providing information about Sámi issues on Sámi terms was not just about compensating the Sámi minority for a non-existent written record of their history; its justification was grounded in the Sámi Act and Article 110a of the Norwegian Constitution. The Ministry supported the plan and established funding for Sámi health and social work projects. In 2001, the Ministry transferred the project fund to the Sámi Parliament, which has continued to announce project funding for Sámi purposes.

A recurring feature of Sámi institutionalization is the focus on Sámi health care (Henriksen, 2009). Although health usually has greater legitimacy than social work, it appears to be easier to obtain project funding using arguments concerning the patient’s right to receive treatment in her/his own mother tongue and heart language. In addition, Sámi social workers argued about and seemed more concerned with the cultural analytical dimension, although this perspective is perhaps too vague when applying for funding for the development of Sámi social work.

When discussing methods, the report (NOU, 1995: 6) offered a culturally sensitive approach. The ‘norwegianization’ of the Sámi people was barely mentioned. The report did not discuss how this assimilation has negative consequences in areas other than language and culture. It presented the view of Norway as a universal welfare state, which also includes the Sámi. The report stated that only additional costs linked to the use of Sámi language and culture should be covered. It did not discuss the long-term effects of prolonged ‘norwegianization’ and Norway’s responsibility as the former colonial master for such possible distortions.

Social work education

In the 1950s, the first Sámi men left Finnmark and started their social work education in Oslo. They came from the same valley, the Tana. In contrast to the international history of professional social work as a women’s project (Zahl, 2003), the Sámi social work pioneers were all men. I look upon the Tana valley as the cradle of Sámi social work, and the Norwegian College of Municipal and Social Work in Oslo acted as ‘mother’ with Principal Liv Kluge as ‘midwife’. Neither the school nor the pioneer students had a specific focus on Sámi issues; their motivation lay in helping others. Reflections on Sámi ethnic issues arose later when they returned and began to work in Finnmark.

In the early 1960s, some universities introduced quotas for Sámi-speaking medical students and this resulted in the training of a number of Sámi-speaking doctors. Social work education aimed to copy this success. In 1975, Nordland University College in Bodø (known as The North University from 2016) was the first to establish quotas for Sámi social work students, leading to the graduation of many Sámi and Sámi-speaking social workers. They came to demand topics relating to Sámi issues on the curriculum and in some years, the students themselves had to organize this. However, this form of institutional disclaimer could not continue. In 1990, BUP Karasjok (a Sámi child and adolescent psychiatric clinic, established in 1984) initiated a program in transcultural understanding and treatment, which provided the opportunity for students to immerse themselves in cultural analysis based on Sámi-related themes.

One of the most important issues for the Sámi health and social work organizations was the struggle to get Sámi issues on the national curriculum. In 1991, Norway established a national council for university-level education in health and social care. This speeded up the work on a common national framework for health and social work education programmes. Although the Organization of Sámi Social Workers (SSS [Sámi Sosialbargiid Searvi]) proposed that Sámi issues should be mandatory, this succeeded only partially. The council adopted 12 credits of compulsory courses in sociology and anthropology, which gave educational institutions the opportunity to include Sámi ethnic issues and questions in the curriculum.

In the 1980s, the number of institutions offering social work education expanded and moved northwards to Sámi areas. Both Finnmark University College and Harstad University College in Northern Norway established social work education programmes with quotas for Sámi students. Many of these social workers practised in Sámi areas, and through SSS challenged established social work by raising questions concerning Sámi ethnic issues. There is reason to believe that the struggle relating to the Alta-Kautokeino River dam encouraged this engagement. The 1980s was an active and reflective period in developing Sámi social work, with a search for better knowledge and extended research. Sámi University College was established in 1989 and is nationally responsible for higher education in the Sámi language and culture. The North University has a similar responsibility for Lule- and South Sámi dialects and culture. Since Sámi University College does not have a separate Sámi social work education programme, UiT The Arctic University of Norway also educates social workers able to work in Sámi areas.

Literature and research

In 1989, the Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration developed an educational programme and a syllabus on Norway as a multicultural society (Thorbjørnsrud and Engebrigtsen, 1995). This syllabus became important in the cultural awareness approach when educating social welfare professionals. In 1995–2000, a national project run by five university colleges, including Sámi University College, also focused on multicultural understanding within the education of health and social work professionals. As a part of this project, Thomas Hylland Eriksen, one of Norway’s most acclaimed anthropologists, wrote Flerkulturell forståelse (Multicultural Understanding) (Eriksen, 1997).

At the beginning of the 1990s, BUP Karasjok set up an education programme on transcultural treatment, led by anthropologists Harald Eidheim and Vigdis Stordahl. In 1998, together with some of the course participants, they published one of the first textbooks on social work in a Sámi context (Eidheim and Stordahl, 1998). Its preface emphasized that Norway is a multicultural society. The book represented a common platform for cultural understanding, and particular attention was paid to Meløe’s (1979) concepts of observing with an ‘unskilled, skilled or blind gaze’ (Saus, 1997: 102). A person with an ‘unskilled gaze’ can skill his/her gaze by acquiring knowledge. Some experts believe that they have all the answers; they forget to ask questions and their gaze may thus become ‘blind’. According to Meløe (1979), it is better to hold an ‘inexpert gaze’ that is curious instead of giving answers. From a constructive perspective, it is important to turn a critical epistemological focus on ourselves and question why we construct reality in the way we do. This opens up the possibility of noting usually invisible concepts such as ‘hegemony’, ‘Whiteness’ and ‘privileges’ (Baltra-Ulloa, 2013).

Saus completed her PhD in 2004 (Saus, 2004), and in 2006 the Child Development Centre for Northern Norway (BUS) published several booklets based on her doctoral thesis that focused on cultural sensitivity and multiculturalism. Saus (2004; Saus and Boine, 2008) developed a holistic approach for culturally oriented practice using the model of a cube. The base of the cube represents the theoretical basis for child protection, namely, the legal, psychological and sociological theories, and anthropological perspectives. The four sides of the cube are concerned with the child’s well-being, client relations, methodology and communities, respectively. This culminates in the top of the cube, that is, child welfare practice. In her texts, she mentions the term ‘post-colonial’, but without discussing this further. The work of Saus still plays an influential role in the development of Sámi social work, with a specific focus on child protection.

Tronvoll et al. (2004) published a collection of articles whose purpose was to contribute to the building of knowledge about practical situations in different Sámi contexts. Reflections on minority and ethnicity issues and cultural contexts are central themes in the book, and a number of methods are discussed that can be categorized as culturally sensitive thinking. The book remains a key text in the curriculum to build understanding of Sámi perspectives into social work education. However, it does not challenge us to reflect on the consequences of ‘norwegianization’ and its possible impact on social problems.

In 2013, researchers at the Institute of Child Welfare and Social Work at UiT The Arctic University of Norway published an anthology on social science challenges in new arenas (Bø et al., 2013). The focus in most of the articles is on linguistic and cultural barriers for equality in social services. One of the articles (Henriksen, 2013) notes the concept of ‘cultural pain’ as a possible consequence of ‘norwegianization’, implying a connection between traumas of the past and solutions of today (p. 91). However, more research and knowledge are needed to provide answers to these questions.

The organization of Sámi social workers

Norway introduced the Social Care Act in 1964, which ensured that every municipality should establish social security services. The focus in social work practice was on housing and economic social work. This led to many new positions for social workers in the Sámi areas and many of the Sámi social work pioneers returned to Finnmark (Henriksen, 2009). One of the Sámi pioneers, Trygve Ballari, became director of social services in two coastal municipalities. He explained how the Biafra war in the mid-1960s aroused his Sámi ethnic curiosity. The halt in stockfish exports affected the coastal Sámi population. Merchants supplied goods to households throughout the winter and when residents later sold the stockfish, the merchants received payment for the goods. The crisis meant that the Sámi population could not sell the fish and could not buy goods. The local social services had to issue food requisitions to inhabitants.

The pioneers had to challenge the lack of Sámi focus in social work practice. They established a network that also included collaboration with researchers at the universities in Oslo and Tromsø. This network became a forum for raising cultural and ethnic issues in discussions. Trygve Ballari noted that in the social sector in general and in Sámi issues in particular, both were struggling with prejudice, a lack of legitimacy among the population, and both lacked political spokespersons. This first attempt to organize Sámi social workers had to face these challenges concerning legitimacy.

In 1984, Sámi social workers established the first Sámi organization for social workers (SSS). Although SSS was not a labour union organization, members were able to address union issues through their double membership of SSS and one of the three Norwegian unions for social workers. The primary mission of SSS was to rebuild discussions that Sámi social work pioneers had started in the 1970s. SSS worked closely with the Sámi Medical Association and the Sámi Nursing Association. In 1986, these three organizations arranged the first major Sámi health and social care conference in Karasjok in which Norway’s Minister of Health and Social Affairs participated (Medica, 1986). This conference and the establishment of BUP Karasjok in 1984 are considered the cornerstones of the public report on health and social services for the Sámi population in Norway (NOU, 1995: 6).

In 1989, the Norwegian Association of Social Workers (NOSO) adopted their first Sámi social political programme and established a Sámi political committee. Henriksen (2009) noted that the union was initially against this. The management board suggested that the union’s minority political committee should also manage Sámi issues. After discussions, the union came to realize that matters concerning indigenous peoples and their desire for increased self-determination were different from the integration of foreign minorities. The Sámi political programme became effective for all three national social worker organizations and continued until 1995. During this period, the organizations also focused on educational issues.

Today, SSS is a dormant organization. There have been some discussions about reviving the organization with a Nordic Sámi focus, but without success. In 2017, UiT The Arctic University of Norway will host the Fourth International Indigenous Voices in Social Work Conference, which might be an opportunity to revitalize the organization of Sámi social workers.

Summarizing the development of social work in Sámi areas

The Sámi areas in Northern Norway have experienced two waves of colonization. First, there is the centuries-long period of assimilation of the Sámi. Otnes (1970) labels this as a colonization and points out that the mercantile colonization of the Sámi areas started in the Viking Age, followed by formal colonization via the Lapp Codicil of 1751, and actual, practical colonization through settlement. According to Otnes, the new era of colonialism had a ‘stop–go policy’ in which strict assimilatory policies of ‘norwegianization’ were followed by slowly emerging goodwill and cautious acceptance of autonomous Sámi political and institutional formation.

The second colonization took place during World War II (WWII). In 1940–1945, the Nazis occupied the Sámi areas in Northern Norway. When Russian forces advanced into their neighbouring country in 1944 and forced the Nazis to leave, the Nazis initiated ‘scorched earth policy’. The Nazis evacuated most of the inhabitants and burned and destroyed roughly 11,000 buildings. Rebuilding and providing houses for the local population were thus a priority for the authorities in the 1950s. In the 1960s, Norway established a universal social security system (Kuhnle and Solheim, 1991). Besides housing, the focus was on employment and income security. This meant that professional social work extended nationwide, also into the Sámi areas in Northern Norway. Brantenberg (1991) concludes that Norwegian authorities in the 1950s and 1960s did not consider the Sámi as a separate ethnic population with their own rights. Nevertheless, certain actions were taken because the authorities perceived the Sámi as a group that was lagging behind the general prosperity of Norway both economically and educationally. The hegemonic national story views the Sámi as poor people living in their turf huts up in the high north.

In the 1970s, with the first labour immigrants arriving from Pakistan, Turkey and Morocco (Tjelmeland and Brochmann, 2003), Norway became a multicultural society. It is useful to understand multiculturalism as a normative political view of society’s cultural diversity and the authorities’ practice towards its minorities. Multiculturalism confronts assimilation policy and recognizes the rights of minority languages and culture. Bangstad (2011) considers the Canadian philosophers Will Kymlicka (Banting and Kymlycka, 2006; Kymlycka, 1995) and Charles Taylor (1994, 1998) as the key founders of multiculturalism. Kymlicka follows the integration line in which the rights of minorities to their own language and culture must be combined with the obligation to learn the majority language. Taylor accepts a more ‘ghettoization’ direction in which the government must take an active responsibility to protect and develop minority languages and culture. According to Bø (2011), Kymlicka makes a distinction between the rights of indigenous/national minorities and those of immigrants. The state has linguistic and cultural maintenance obligations that are transferable to indigenous people, but not to those who have voluntarily left their own country. They must accept the consequences and adapt to the culture of their new homeland.

Before the advent of multiculturalism, Norway was considered a monocultural nation. The long period of assimilation of the Sámi appeared to be successful because they were recognized as part of this monocultural nation. The new national way of dealing with minorities was based on the migrant culture, not on a new focus on Sámi issues. The new multicultural approach also challenged the knowledge and the methods of the welfare professions, leading to multicultural understanding and culturally sensitive methods being developed and applied in social work.

In 1971, the Sámi demonstrated for the first time against the proposed hydroelectric dam on the Alta-Kautokeino River. Although the plans were changed, the authorities still intended to construct the dam. New demonstrations in 1979–1981 brought international focus to the struggle of the Sámi. In the end the dam was built, but the 1980s became a decade for studying Sámi rights and establishing laws and agencies as part of increased Sámi autonomy. This new focus also applied to Sámi social work. Some Sámi institutions were established and Sámi social workers came together to establish a separate organization for Sámi social workers. Despite this increased focus, Sámi social work became part of national social work practice, characterized by multiculturalism and culturally sensitive thinking. An increased multicultural focus is also evident in textbooks, curricula, education and research.

The Sámi health and social organizations in co-operation with the Sámi Parliament worked hard to have the government recognize its responsibility to the Sámi population. In 1995, the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs initiated a national study on the health and social services provided to the Sámi population. The report contributed to several initiatives with special responsibility to the Sámi population. My analysis shows a trend from ‘performing social work’ in Sámi areas to an increased awareness of the term ‘Sámi social work’. However, it is difficult to find much difference between those two perspectives. Sámi social work still seemed to have a multicultural approach that tied the focus to culturally sensitive methods for cultural integration. This perspective was so strong that in the late 1990s even Sámi University College, with its special responsibility for Sámi issues, participated in a national project of multicultural understanding. Why did the Sámi support this multicultural perspective? The Norwegian authorities prioritized building up a universal welfare state and the Sámi were integrated into this project. The welfare state was considered an instrument for safeguarding the social challenges in the integration process, including the additional costs for safeguarding Sámi language and culture within multicultural Norway. Norway is viewed as one of the world’s best welfare societies with a good universal welfare system for all its inhabitants. As an oil nation, Norway has a very strong economy. Given this situation, Sámi conservatism is understandable.

The autonomy of the Sámi Parliament has increased and it has taken over some of the national state functions. It is to be hoped that the Sámi Parliament also wants increased responsibility in health and social issues; however, thus far, this undertaking remains unfulfilled. The Norwegian authorities and the Sámi Parliament have established a consultation system; for example, the Sámi Parliament and the Ministry of Health and Care Services negotiated a regulation change requiring agencies to assess Sámi language and culture in supervised foster homes and child protective institutions.

In recent years multiculturalism has been strongly criticized, and Sámi institutions are now placing greater emphasis on what is happening in other indigenous areas. Indigenous researchers and social workers are discussing the concept of ‘decolonized social work’. However, before I comment on what Sámi social work can contribute to a decolonization discourse, a few remarks on the criticism levelled against multiculturalism are warranted.

Critique of the cultural awareness approach

Kymlicka’s dichotomy about the rights of minorities to their own language and culture with the obligation to learn the majority language does not capture the current minority situation when refugees and asylum seekers are forced to leave their homelands. Bangstad (2011) summarizes the critique of multiculturalism in three main areas, namely, the liberal, egalitarian and feminist orientations.

Criticism from the liberal perspective centres on multiculturalism exaggerating the idea of a peaceful and colourful coexistence between different cultural groups. Human beings have complex identities attributed differently in different contexts. Multiculturalism under-communicates the notion that recognition of identity also relates to questions about choices, power, contradictions and hierarchies. Belonging to ethnic and cultural categories is not the same as voluntary membership in organizations. Multiculturalism does not solve conflicts between individual and collective interests and does not provide directions for prioritizing among different minority groups.

From the egalitarian perspective, criticism focuses on how multiculturalism as a policy of diversity with its special focus on identity has helped to obscure and drive the growth of socio-economic inequality and to generate conflicts because demands are often incompatible. Whereas authorities previously focused on community, class and equality, multiculturalism is concerned with identity and inequality.

The starting point for the feminist critique is that the progress towards equality and work with women’s and gay rights have been greatest in modern Western societies. This orientation asks what happens if group rights take precedence over individual rights if citizens are asked to respect cultural rights. Many cultures have strong patriarchal constraints and multiculturalism ignores the existence of gender discrimination in many cultures. An important question is whether internal imbalances in power relations between such groups will affect the ‘minorities of the minorities’.

In addition, indigenous sources are critical of multiculturalism (Hart, 2007; Turner, 2006). They indict multiculturalism for the inadequate attention given to the historical facts of colonization and its consequences, thereby not acknowledging indigenous rights as a category that is independent of national acceptance, and failing to question the legitimacy of nation-state jurisdiction over the sovereignty of indigenous peoples and their rights to their traditional lands, language and culture. Multiculturalism also fails to recognize that a meaningful theory of aboriginal rights is impossible without aboriginal participation. Hart follows up the ideology criticism by criticizing the methods. He uses the metaphor of a car owner who has lost his car keys. The method of cultural sensitivity is akin to searching for the keys underneath the streetlights, even though the car is parked on the dark side of the street. Cross-cultural methods act like a helper who comes along to supplement the streetlights with a flashlight directed towards the car.

I agree with Hart’s statement that it is not enough to offer methods focusing on differences in cultural encounters. As helpers, we also need to highlight the dark history of colonization and its negative consequences. The past is the foremost weapon in indigenous rights struggles. As researchers and social workers, we must always bear in mind that we are dealing with the long-lasting legacy of cultural devaluation, which can take a long time to heal. Mutual recognition and acknowledgement are central elements of the work towards reconciliation and healing. Modern social work often skips the phases of recognition and reconciliation and goes straight into the relief and repair phases.

Nor is it enough to highlight from a distance. As social workers, we follow the clients and attempt to elucidate the roots to their problems and possibly face our own shortcomings. Perhaps it is not just a question of helping to find the car keys. What about the need to provide better streetlights, repair the car or maybe repair the road? Baltra-Ulloa (2013) is concerned about cross-culturalism’s focus on ‘others’ and how a lack of critical attention to our own possible blindness for power and powerlessness can turn cross-cultural social work into instruments of cultural preservation and neocolonialism. From an anti-colonial perspective, Hart (2007) compels us to investigate and understand how colonization adopts new forms and encourages us to assume a proactive role in combating its legacy of asymmetrical power relations. Anti-colonialism supports cultural revitalization and social transformation.

A decolonizing approach

Decolonization means accepting Indigenous Peoples’ lived experience as a starting point when searching for solutions to the problems and issues they face, which, in many instances, are also relevant to non-Indigenous Peoples and global problems, such as climate change, pollution, war, poverty and hunger, to name a few. It means putting people’s needs, uniqueness and knowledge first and seeing all the activities in which we engage from here on in as honest attempts to discern the nature of decolonized social work. (Gray et al., 2013: 7)

Gray and Hetherington (2013) note that indigenous social work

emerged to meet the needs of Indigenous groups in an effort to overcome the aftermath and injustices of assimilation, isolation and cultural displacement perpetrated by colonizers with the firm belief that they were divinely guided to strip Indigenous Peoples of their children and culture, lands and rights, and many in the USA today still hold to these beliefs. It is thus not just an effort to find effective local personal and family interventions, it is also a political process that incorporates history and cultural priorities, seeks to redress colonisation and establish a mainstream model that is effective and relevant for particular populations. (p. 28)

Post-colonial understanding

Duran and Duran (1995) define the term ‘post-colonial’ as ‘a social criticism that bears witness to those unequal processes of representation by which the historical experience of the once colonized comes to be framed in the west’ (p. 126). The post-colonial perspective would thus encourage us to acknowledge forms of knowledge that emanate from different, non-Western, cosmologies or ‘world-views’ as holding equal value to the prevalent Western epistemology. Duran and Duran (1995) add that the universal claims of the Western perspective are not made as part of an open argumentation, but through the marginalization and silencing of other possible perspectives, thereby naturalizing Western epistemologies as universal. Henrich et al. (2010) report that 96 percent of respondents in psychological research are from Western countries. However, such WEIRDs (an acronym for Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) only make up 12 percent of the global population, and they warn against the tendency of psychology to draw universal conclusions on such an inadequate selection of respondents.

One of the first key activities of post-colonial theory can be summarized as the revision of colonial cultural practices and values. Thiong’o (1986) believes that decolonization cannot be implemented only as political and institutional changes, but is concerned with ‘decolonizing the mind’. We must become aware of how our attitudes towards others and ourselves have been shaped by ingrained colonial conceptions. However, post-colonial theory is not only keen to focus on the negative, but also seeks models to rectify old wrongs and promote reconciliation. Within post-colonial understanding, the goal is to give a voice to the dominated groups as part of a possible decolonization.

Critical indigenous philosophy

According to Turner (2006), the idea that indigenous peoples have their own forms of knowledge is part of classical indigenous philosophy (Alfred, 1995, 1999; Fixico, 2003). Alfred argues that decolonization will only be possible if we turn decisively against the majority culture in order to retrieve the traditional values of our ancestors. Turner (2006) is critical of this ‘exotification’ of indigenous knowledge as a dichotomy to Western knowledge. He calls this indigenous nationalism. Turner means that indigenous philosophy need not recognize an indigenous world-view, but must accept that indigenous spirituality, rituals and conceptions of faith both exist and are practised differently in different indigenous groups. Critical indigenous philosophy must unpack the colonial framework of these discourses, assert and defend our ‘indigeneity’ within the dominant culture, and defend the legal and political integrity of indigenous communities. Turner’s perspective raises the need for dialogue between indigenous and hegemonic Western epistemologies, given that it is ultimately only by way of consultation that indigenous peoples have accomplished today’s positions. Turner believes that in their battles for rights, indigenous peoples must have ‘word warriors’ who respect indigenous practices and also master the ‘language of power’. Such ‘word warriors’ could contribute to continued dialogue and reconciliation between indigenous peoples and governments.

Some decolonizing challenges

I previously pointed out the challenges related to our privileges. As scholars, many of us have privileged positions in relation to both administrative power and the Eurocentric epistemology. There are few indigenous academic journals that are oriented towards indigenous affairs and they often have low status in the traditional research world. Spivak (1988) writes about the challenge of ‘unlearning one’s privileges’.

Andresen (2000) shares this concern when she views the welfare state professionals as representative of the Habermasian ‘system world’, and therefore as both potential and actual violators.

Another challenge is the term ‘colonization’. As a well-developed indigenous society, is it appropriate to use colonization with reference to Sámi areas? Most people accept the terms ‘assimilation’ and ‘norwegianization’, but what about colonization? If we want to use the term ‘colonialism’, we must also recognize that there has been a colonization and post-colonialism. The notion of the post-colonial has also been criticized. One line of critique is that the idea that our age is post-colonial is anathema to those who are engaged in a political or cultural battle against what they perceive as ongoing forms of colonization. When one’s reality is dominated by fear of the loss of a culture and language, and the desire to retrieve, reconstruct and revitalize a threatened ethnic community and its culture, highly valued post-colonial notions such as Bhabha (2004) hybrid, individual, ‘in-between’ languages, cultures and nations may not make much sense, or may even appear as contradictory to cultural retrieval.

In the reconstruction of indigenous-oriented social work, we are committed to give the ‘indigenous’ concept a content that is different from the majority concept. In such processes, one can easily fall into beliefs about the ‘good old days’ bringing solutions. In addition, given that the world of indigenous peoples is quite different, is it possible to talk about a common indigenous philosophy? This view is also common in Sámi political discussions.

Critical indigenous philosophy focuses on the dialogue between indigenous peoples and governments, which is justified because it is dialogue that has led indigenous peoples to today’s positions. In my opinion, this applies particularly to the Sámi people. A dialogue on rights and the establishment of Sámi institutions as part of self-government followed the demonstrations back in the 1980s. An agreement on consultation procedures was an important part of this dialogue. The establishment and management of the Finnmark Act are also based on dialogic compromises between national authorities, the Sámi Parliament and Finnmark County Council.

Closing remarks

Critical indigenous philosophy and a post-colonial understanding seem appropriate for a decolonizing Sámi perspective. Both the King of Norway and the Church of Norway have apologized for the ‘norwegianization’ of the Sámi people. Norway has one of the world’s best universal public welfare systems and this ‘fortunate’ integration of the Sámi is evident from the statistics on social conditions for indigenous peoples around the world. The Sámi have low scores in most of the problem areas. In addition, the Sámi rights struggle and the consultation agreement attract international attention because of their relatively successful outcomes. It is possible to improve consultation procedures. Sometimes the national authorities forget to consult the Sámi people. The Sámi Parliament might also exploit the system and secure consultations on social rights. Social issues are usually far down on the agenda at meetings between the majority and the minority. The historical development underlines the importance of discussing the platform for Sámi social work. The multicultural aims for integration do not match the needs of indigenous people’s claim for recognition and apology from the majority for their earlier violence and colonization. A decolonizing perspective may achieve this with the understanding that the consequences of colonization can be difficult to detect, even for those who are aware of them. Therefore, I have also introduced a decolonizing perspective based on post-colonial thinking and critical indigenous philosophy as an alternative to the multicultural approach. The post-colonial approach safeguards the desire to recognize colonization and its repercussions in a number of areas other than language and culture. A post-colonial approach also focuses on reconciliation and restoration. A critical indigenous philosophy recognizes indigenous practices and the need for dialogue between indigenous peoples and governments.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Author biography

Jan Erik Henriksen is a professor in social work at UiT The Arctic University of Norway. He graduated with a BA in social work in 1982 and practiced as a social worker in two Sámi Municipalities. He completed his MA in 1993 and since then has been teaching and doing research at the Department of Child Welfare and Social Work. He is a Sámi-speaking coastal Sámi from Nesseby in Finnmark, married into a reindeer-herding family and has two adult children.

References

Alfred

(1995) Heeding the Voices of Our Ancestors: Kahnawake Mohawk Politics and the Rise of Native Nationalism in Canada. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alfred

(1999) Peace, Power and Righteousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Andresen

(2000) Felleskap og sammenhenger. Yrkeshjelpere i grupper, nettverk og organisasjoner [Community and Contexts. Professional Helpers in Groups, Networks and Organizations]. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.

Baltra-Ulloa

A.J.

(2013) ‘Why Decolonized Social Work is More than Cross-culturalism’, in Gray

Coates

Yellow Bird

Hetherington

(eds) Decolonizing Social Work. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 87–104.

Bangstad

(2011) ‘Multikulturalismen og dens kritikere’ [Multiculturalism and Its Critics], in Bø

B.P.

(ed.) Multikulturell teori og flerkulturelle praksiser. Artikler om norsk minoritetspolitikk [Multicultural Theory and Multicultural Practices. Articles on Norwegian Minority Policy]. Oslo: Abstrakt Forlag, pp. 21–45.

Banting

Kymlycka

(2006) Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bhabha

(2004) The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.

Bø

B.P.

(2011) Multikulturell teori og flerkulturelle praksiser. Artikler om norsk minoritetspolitikk [Multicultural Theory and Multicultural Practices. Articles on Norwegian Minority Policy]. Oslo: Abstrakt Forlag.

Bø

B.P.

Hermansen

Stenberg

(2013) Sosialfaglige utfordringer på nye arenaer – stemmer fra nord [Social Professional Challenges in New Arenas – Voices from North]. Stamsund: Orkana Akademisk Forlag.

10.

Brantenberg

T.O.

(1991) ‘Constructing Indigenous Self-government in a Nation-state: Samediggi – The Sami Parliament in Norway’, in Jull

I.P.

Roberst

(eds) The Challenge of Northern Regions. Darwin, NT, Australia: North Australia Research Unit, Australian National University, pp. 66–128.

11.

Duran

(1995) Native American Postcolonial Psychology. New York: State University of New York Press.

12.

Eidheim

Stordahl

(1998) Kulturmøte og terapi i Sápmi [Cultural Meeting and Therapy in Sápmi]. Karasjok: Davvi Girji OS.

13.

Eriksen

T.H.

(1997) Flerkulturell forståelse [Multicultural Understanding]. Oslo: Tano Aschehoug.

14.

Fixico

(2003) The American Indian Mind in a Linear World: American Indian Studies and Traditional Knowledge. New York: Routledge.

15.

Fylkesmannen (1969) Innstilling vedr. sosial- og sysselsettingsproblemer i indre Finnmark [Report on Social and Employment Problems in Inner Finnmark]. Vadsø: Fylkesmannen i Finnmark.

16.

Gray

Hetherington

(2013) ‘Indigenization, Indigenous Social Work and Decolonization: Mapping the Theoretical Terrain’, in Gray

Coates

Yellow Bird

Hetherington

(eds) Decolonizing Social Work. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 25–41.

17.

Gray

Coates

Yellow Bird

Hetherington

(2013) ‘Scoping the Terrain of Decolonization’, in Gray

Coates

Yellow Bird

Hetherington

(eds) Decolonizing Social Work. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 1–24.

18.

Hart

M.A.

(2007) Cree Ways of Helping: An Indigenist Research Project. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba.

19.

Henrich

Heine

Norenzayan

(2010) ‘The Weirdest People in the World’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33: 61–83.

20.

Henriksen

J.E.

(2009) ‘Samisk sosialt arbeid – fra ildsjeler til institusjonalisering’ [Sámi Social Work – From Enthusiasts to Institutionalisation], in Grønningssæter

A.B.

(ed.) Sosialt arbeid Tilbakeblikk – utfordringer – visjoner [Social Work. Looking Back – Challenges – Visions]. Oslo: Fellesorganisasjonen (FO), pp. 157–170.

21.

Henriksen

J.E.

(2013) ‘Refleksjoner om avdekking av seksuelle overgrep i små lokalsamfunn’ [Reflections on the Disclosure of Sexual Abuse in Small Communities], in Bø

B.P.

Hermansen

Stenberg

(eds) Sosialfaglige utfordringer på nye arenaer – stemmer fra nord [Social Professional Challenges in New Arenas – Voices from North]. Stamsund: Orkana Akademisk Forlag, pp. 75–96.

22.

Jonassen

. (1959) ‘Sosiale og hygieniske forhold i flyttsamenes basisområde’ [Social and Hygienic Conditions in the Reindeer Sámi Main Region], Tidsskrift for den norske legeforening [J Norweg Med Assoc] 79: 113–118.

23.

Josefsen

Mörkenstam

Saglie

(2015) ‘Different Institutions within Similar States: The Norwegian and Swedish Sámediggis’, Ethnopolitics: Formerly Global Review of Ethnopolitics 14: 32–51.

24.

Kuhnle

Solheim

(1991) Velferdsstaten. Vekst og omstilling [The Welfare State. Growth and Restructuring]. Oslo: Tano.

25.

Kymlycka

(1995) Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26.

Medica

(1986) Sámi doaktáriid searvvi áigečála 1986:1 [Sámi Medical Association Annual Report]. Karasjok: Sami Medica – Samisk legeforening.

27.

Meløe

(1979) Notater i vitenskapsteori til gruppene humaniora og samfunnsvitenskap med fiskerifag [Notes on Scientific Theory to Humanities, Social Science and Fishery Science]. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.

28.

NOU (1973) Innvandringspoltikk [Immigration Policy]. Oslo: Kommunaldepartmentet.

29.

NOU (1995) Plan for helse- og sosialtjenester til den samiske befolkning i Norge [Planning Health and Social Services for the Sámi Population in Norway]. Oslo: Sosial- og helsedepartementet.

30.

Otnes

(1970) Den samiske nasjon [The Sámi Nation]. Oslo: Pax forlag A/S.

31.

Samekomiteen (1959) Innstilling (1959:36) fra komiteen til å utrede samespørsmål [The Report (1959: 36) from the Committee to Examine Sámi Issues]. Oslo: Oppnevnt av Kirke- og Undervisningsdepartementet [Appointed by the Ministry of Church and Education].

32.

Saus

(1997) Å se; utfordringer for barnevernet i møte med det flerkulturelle samfunnet [To See: Challenges for Child Care Authorities in the Face of the Multicultural Society]. Tromsø: Institutt for skoleforskning/pedagogikk, Universitetet i Tromsø.

33.

Saus

(2004) Kontekstuelt barnevern – barnevern i samisk kontekst [Contextually Child Care – Child Care Authorities in the Sámi Context]. Tromsø: Universitetet i Tromsø.

34.

Saus

Boine

E.M.

(2008) Kulturell kompetanse [Cultural Competence]. Tromsø: Barnevernets kompetansesenter i Nord Norge.

35.

Spivak

(1988) ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’, in Grossberg

Grossberg

N.L.

(eds) Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 271–313.

36.

Stortingsmelding (1962–1963) 21: Om kulturelle og økonomiske tiltak av særlig interesse for den samisktalende befolkning [About Cultural and Economic Initiatives of Particular Interest to the Sámi-Speaking Population]. Oslo: Kirke- og Undervisningsdepartementet [The Ministry of Church and Education].

37.

Taylor

(1994) ‘The Politics of Recognition’, in Gutmann

(ed.) Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, pp. 25–74. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

38.

Taylor

(1998) Autentisitetens etikk [The Ethics of Authenticity]. Oslo: Cappelen.

39.

Thiong’o

N.W.

(1986) Decolonizing the Mind. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

40.

Thorbjørnsrud

Engebrigtsen

(1995) Norge som flerkulturelt samfunn. Et undervisningsopplegg [Norway as a Multicultural Society. A Curriculum]. Oslo: Kommunal- og arbeidsdepartementet og Utlendingsdirektoratet.

41.

Tjelmeland

Brochmann

(2003) I globaliseringens tid 1940–2000 [In the Age of Globalization 1940–2000]. Oslo: Pax Forlag A/S.

42.

Tronvoll

I.M.

Moe

Henriksen

J.E.

(2004) Hjelp i kontekst: praksis, refleksjon og forskning [Help in Context: Practice, Reflection and Research]. Indre Billefjord: Iðut.

43.

Turner

(2006) This Is Not a Peace Pipe: Towards a Critical Indigenous Philosophy. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

44.

Zahl

M.-A.

(2003) ‘Røtter – et tilbakeblikk på sosialt arbeid’ [Roots – A Retrospective View on Social Work], in Zahl

M.-A.

(ed.) Sosialt arbeid. Refleksjon og handling [Social Work. Reflection and Action]. Oslo: Fagbokforlaget, pp. 17–49.