Notes

Social work as a profession was introduced in the industrially underdeveloped Middle East countries in the early 1940’s, at a time when their peoples yearned to achieve “national development” at the speediest rate possible. The road to become modern and to achieve development, it seemed, meant emulating developed countries: importing their goods and gadgets, and transplanting their institutions into the national soil (along with their underlying pre-suppositions, rationale, and guiding ideas). Social work looked so attractive, perceived to be “The Scientific” means for achieving the badly-needed social change and social reforms. The profession was introduced as a “social technology” applying “modern science” (social & behavioral) with the aim of tackling socio-economic problems swiftly and efficiently. American social work was seen as the most “advanced” in the world. A generation of idealistic social work educators enthusiastically embraced the American model and sought to master, and to keep abreast with the “latest” that American social work churned out, with gratitude.

It was not long before social workers in the region realized that the socio-economic problems of their own pre-industrializing countries were vastly dissimilar to those of the post-industrialized countries, in which the imported models were developed. Even more significantly, the incongruencies between the basic assumptions on which the transplanted model was built and those of the local cultural/religious beliefs of the region became manifest. But very few social work scholars would at that time dare question the appropriateness of applying the celebrated, “advanced” American model. However, as more serious discrepancies became obvious, the gravity of the problem was recognized by more and more professionals, and the need for a serious solution to this problem was felt. But any suggested solution was expected to preserve the integrity of the transplanted model as is. Any solution was not expected to question the ‘basic’ assumptions of the now-standard American model, assumed to provide the profession with its reason for being. Moeover, that model lent social workers a basis for claiming the coveted status of professionalism. These considerations practically meant that any solution to the incongruence issue should do nothing more than suggest bits and pieces of changes here and there in the body of the imported model, and only as is utterly necessary. It would not be an exaggeration to conclude that social workers of that era suffered from a severe case of what we may call Professional Imperialism-By-Demand! (with apology to Midgley, 1981).

The “Indigenization” of social work movement emerged in the early 1970’s as a solution to the issue of the incongruity between the imported model and local conditions. It carried the promise of legitimizing some freedom from the self-imposed, dutiful adherence to the ‘most advanced’ American model. The 1972 succinct, though very general, definition of indigenization by Shawky as “adapting imported ideas to fit local needs”, captures the essence of the concept, and is still being widely quoted (e.g. Mupedziswa and Sinkamba, 2014: 148). Indigenization attempted to avoid the hazards of blindly following the imported American model, without requiring any radical changes in its basic nature. But the problem is that this innovation suffered from two serious shortcomings: a) it implied that the transplanted model is in itself “basically sound”, universal, worthy of being applied anywhere in the world, with ‘minor’ alterations; b) it did not subsume any specific procedure for identifying aspects of the imported model that conflict with the local realities, nor suggest any methodical course of action for their rectification. In 1978, I complained that the transplantation of social technologies to a different environment brings in very serious problems, showing how certain social welfare programs imported with the best of intentions into Egypt failed in one of three ways. Some just faded away leaving no traces, others kept a few specimens alive with drastic changes of function, while a few survived only after their workings were adapted to local conditions (Ragab: 24-25).

These defects were not immediately recognized by many professionals. Some leading American academics even portrayed these as only temporary difficulties, similar to those of transplant rejection symptoms in medicine, which would soon resolve “through particular adaptations”. (Thurz and Vigilante, eds. 1975, 1976: 24). Soon after, however, it became clear that indigenization was not a real answer to the incongruity issues facing the application of the Western model, particularly in Muslim societies. However, similar complaints were vigorously voiced by professionals in other parts of the developing world. Dissatisfaction with the shortcomings of indigenization became gradually more articulated and more widely shared. Renowned scholars providing consultation to international technical assistance programs to developing countries soon found, first-hand, that minor adaptations of the Western model would never be adequate. Some of those leading authorities such as Herman Stein declared that the methods, the structure, and the ideology of the profession are in fact "shaped by the underlying social, economic, and cultural elements in each particular society in which it develops” (Stein, 1967: 153, emphasis added). Statements such as these pointed the need for a more radical rethinking of the whole issue of indigenization. Today, after more than three decades of doubts and expressions of dissatisfaction, these fundamental criticisms of indigenization are becoming almost universally recognized. A recent work on Indigenous Social Work Around the World, had its Part One titled “Indigenization As An Outmoded Concept”. The authors’ justification of that statement is that the real issue is “…the development of culturally relevant social work practice and education…”. They point out that “indigenization” carries a baggage that hardly can help the profession adequately reflect the “contemporary efforts to deal better with diversity - being mindful of cultural sensitivity, competence, appropriateness, and relevance” (Gray, Coates and Bird, 2010: XXV).

Authentization of social work in developing countries, an appellation I suggested (for lack of a better translation of the Arabic term ‘Taaseel’) was introduced to replace the idea of indigenization, and to deal with its shortcomings (Ragab, 1982). The word Ta’seel in Arabic literally means seeking direction from one’s own roots; to restore originality; to become genuine. Authentization of social work, then, indicates a process through which the profession becomes true to the nation’s identity, its defining characteristics, and its cultural and social realities, which enables it to profitably use what is pertinent of the accumulated contributions of other nations. Most importantly, authentization is directed at correcting the two main flaws of indigenization: (a) issues of incongruity and lack of originality, and (b) absence of a systematic methodology. Here is how authentization proposes to deal with these issues.
(1) Incongruity and lack of originality:
Instead of building local practices by “starting from” the foreign Western model’s constellation of value, purpose, sanction, knowledge, and method, embedded in foreign socio-cultural conditions, authentization meant for social work to develop its professional practices “starting” from its “own” national social and cultural realities. The rationale for this is simple. The imported model was developed to cater for the needs of peoples living under cultural, religious, and social conditions significantly different from those prevalent in the region. However, starting from “within” does not mean ending there. A salient feature of developing the authentized model is to benefit from any “compatible” elements found in the imported model – or of any other country’s experiences, for that matter. In this way, social workers in developing countries are expected, naturally enough, to do just what their colleagues in the West have historically done developing their own celebrated model from within. In this way, the authentized model’s originality and fidelity to its own peoples’ identity would be preserved. Its consistency with the realities of its local conditions would be maintained. At the same time, the profession would keep an open mind, to avail itself of any useful insights developed in other countries that share comparable social-structural conditions, or comparable cultural and religious identities.
(2) The methodology issue:
Authentization suggests a sequential procedure by which the task of rebuilding local social work practice would be approached. (Ragab, 1990: 46-47).The process involves the following steps:
1. Serious efforts would be directed at the methodical identification of the core societal values with a bearing on the workings of the social welfare system of the country.
2. Simultaneously, well planned efforts would be directed at the specification of relevant facts pertaining to the current realities of the country’s socio-economic, political institutions.
3. Major social problems impinging on the lives of the people would be systematically studied and analyzed in relation to the functioning (or malfunctioning) of those socio-economic, political institutions.
4. In-depth studies would be conducted to identify the local, indigenous “alternative” practices and arrangements traditionally serving to fulfill the same functions performed by their imported counterparts. Those practices would be evaluated as to their appropriateness for dealing with today’s conditions.
5. The above measures should pave the way for the creative task of the integration of these valuable “genuine” practices and arrangements, steeped in the country’s history, its values and its societal make-up with whatever is found to be compatible in other nations’ experiences.
6. The results from the above would be expected to help in the design of authentic professional practices and programs.
7. These should then be field tested by local practitioners and allied researchers through field demonstrations and field experiments, and then rigorously evaluated, before being adopted and widely disseminated through social work educational institutions.

Authentization of social work was, by its nature, comforting to professionals as it conveys a feeling of moving in the right direction. It looks “within” for guidance, instead of seeking inspiration from “without” its borders. It avails itself of the fund of trusted national experience and wisdom, rather than, lazily, copying incongruent experiences from others who may embrace very different worldviews. Besides, it directs the profession’s activities towards solving the real-life problems felt by its own people. And, it was reassuring to find out that numerous other countries of the South were moving in the same direction. Of special interest was the “reconceptualization of social work’ movement in Latin American countries, although it was deeply intertwined with political movements, with fervent “ideological” leanings, reflecting the nuances of each country’s political scene. But that was to be expected by the proponents of authentization, which accentuated responsiveness to the legitimate aspirations of the local populations in each country. Or as Frederic Reamer put it: “Social work is among the most values based of all professions. It’s deeply rooted in a fundamental set of values that ultimately shapes the profession’s mission and its practitioners’ priorities” (Reamer, 2014; 14).