The multicultural controversy.

Bullock, Roger

The statement by Angela Merkel that 'Germany's attempt to create a multicultural society has utterly failed', echoed by David Cameron for the UK, (1) raises serious concerns for social work. Of course, her comments might have been politically opportune and taken out of context, and residents of countries with a long multicultural tradition--like Canada and Brazil (2)--will probably dismiss them as unduly alarmist. But nearer to home, her observation is part of a drift to the political right on this issue noticeable across the EU, and so is bound to have some effect.

Professions have always been subject to generalisations and grotesque claims of applicability across thousands of individuals, even if they are seen as containing an element of truth. So, everyone has a beef about some group or another, and social workers are no exception. The criticisms they face need not be expounded here except to say that two aspects of their work provide a powerful defence. Social workers deal with people whom few critics are rushing in to help and, unlike services that rely on appointments, non-compliance cannot be ignored because of legitimate concerns about child protection, the confused elderly and mentally disordered.

With such august responsibilities, social workers have to deal with diverse groups of people and their communication has to be effective if progress is to be made. In this context, familiar practice mantras, such as 'start from where the client is', 'listen to children' and 'local solutions for local needs', seem eminently sensible. But when multiculturalism comes under scrutiny, their validity is less obvious.

One of the problems is that multiculturalism means many different things. Angela Merkel referred to 'people living side by side without integration' but this is only one example. Nearly every country in the world is now multicultural and a range of political solutions can be seen--from apartheid, demarcated reservations, ghettoes (formal and informal), repression of particular groups and 'allowing double lives', via elaborate assimilation for citizenship to an open society where individuals express themselves freely and everyone enjoys the variety this produces. Each of these policies sets boundaries for social work practice.

In political discussion, multiculturalism is closely tied to race and ethnicity, and their associated languages, religions and customs. This view is significant for social work because these components are among the criteria for matching children to care placements and justifying community projects working with local 'cultures'. Thus, in a critical climate, practice based on respect for these factors might be seen as reactionary, inhibiting integration and social mobility, or even complicit in the socially undesirable.

But this 'race' and ethnicity perspective is too simple, because the problem is essentially about differences, and a main divider in the UK is social class in that it affects outcomes with regard to poverty, living conditions, education, health, relationships and life style. A key question, therefore, is how far the obvious aspects of minority ethnic groups that alarm Chancellor Merkel are merely more visible manifestations of wider social differences or are qualitatively different from features that are less apparent. The answer has major implications for practice.

Social workers are not a politically radical group but are generally perceived to be tolerant and broad minded. However, scepticism about multiculturalism inevitably challenges their work. They have to 'engage' with different cultures to communicate and gain co-operation with those they seek to help, but within what tolerance limits? Obviously, child abuse, offending and domestic violence are now totally unacceptable but what about government policies that harm their clients or exacerbate their difficulties; or, at an individual level, at what point should criticism begin about benefit scroungers, indifference to girls' education, feckless fathers, poor parenting, the encouragement of languages other than English and low wages? All of these have implications for 'welfare' in that they influence children's long-term situations and, in a context where outcomes rather than outputs are the focus of social work, cannot be ignored.

While there is a need for social workers to 'understand' disapproved cultural elements, this often gets confused with condoning; but this still poses a dilemma for society as it has to be said that 'understanding' does seem to lower the threshold.

As a result, some aspects of child and family social work will inevitably come under scrutiny if the political debate about multiculturalism takes off. Adoption and fostering, especially if intercountry or transracial, are likely candidates but especially vulnerable is community and preventive work. Although these have received an impetus from the recent reports by MPs Frank Field and Graham Allen, (3) financial resources are easily cut and they are only likely be funded if they rigorously implement programmes that show value for money. (4)

My own view is that there are no fixed answers to these difficulties because social attitudes change so quickly and social workers have to work within the constraints described. It is also likely that the future political drift in the EU will be towards a 'common rights' approach that guarantees citizens safety, opportunity and equality before the law, but which leaves for debate the importance of features that aid success in contemporary society, such as speaking the home language, acquiring basic skills and qualifications and understanding how society works. What would best protect social work, therefore, is for practitioners to emphasise the welfare of the child whatever his or her culture, to be clear and confident about the tolerance limits they apply and for the profession to review these constantly, with the proviso that whatever is agreed receives full managerial and political support. This at least would provide a sound foundation for further argument should questions about multiculturalism ever impinge on practice.

(1) Address to young party members, 17 October 2010; address to 47th Munich Security Conference, 5 February 2011; address to party members, 14 April 2011; all viewable on YouTube

(2) A recent study from the British Council ranks 31 countries with regard to the effective integration of immigrants. Sweden, Portugal, Canada and Finland are placed as the top four, with the US coming ninth and the UK twelfth (Integrating Immigrants, 2011), www.Britishcouncil.org.

(3) Frank Field, The Foundation Years: Preventing poor children from becoming poor adults, The Report of an Independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances, HM Government, December, 2010; Early Intervention: The next step, An Independent Report to Her Majesty s Government by Graham Allen MP, HM Government, January 2011.

(4) Examples are Nurse Family Partnership, Triple P, PATHS, Communities that Care.

Roger Bullock is Commissioning Editor of Adoption & Fostering and a Fellow, Centre for Social Policy, Warren House Group at Dartington