Journal of Global Social Work Practice, Volume 2, Number 1, May/June 2009
|
Editorial: Sustainable Development, Social Development, and Community Development: Considerations for Global Social Work Practice Introduction In reviewing the articles for the second issue of the Journal of Global Social Work Practice, common terms were detected throughout the manuscripts. These terms included sustainable development, social development, and community development. The three emphases led me to explore the similarities and the differences in their definitions and the part they play in global social work practice. The definition of global social work practice includes a multifaceted perspective that encompasses all of these terms: ...the practice within social work that seeks to ensure appropriate conditions for human growth and development, human rights, social justice, and social action in order to improve the social and overall well-being of people through sustainable development around the world; and is applied at all levels of practice, at all levels of government, across geopolitical borders, and at all levels of social and economic organizations. (Rodgers, 2008) This far-reaching conceptualization presents both an advantage and a challenge to social workers in global practice. In order to comprehend this definition, one must understand the differences between the concepts of sustainable development, social development, and community development. While global social work practice has the advantage of inviting many different points of view, the subsequent dialogue can be so broad that it lacks coherence. Thus, the need to develop a common base for global social work practice becomes even greater. The articles within the second issue of the Journal of Global Social Work Practice focus on the many aspects and implications of sustainable, social, and community development. Sustainable Development The United Nations' (2005) definition of sustainable development, as outlined by the World Summit Outcome Document, reflects the "interdependent" and "reinforcing pillars": (1) economic development, (2) social development, and (3) environmental protection. Certain indigenous people groups have disagreed with this definition and, through dialogues at international forums such as the "United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues" and the "Convention on Biological Diversity", have concluded that there are four rather than three pillars of sustainable development. The fourth domain identified by these groups is "cultural." This view is further expanded in The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity: ...cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature.[It becomes] one of the roots of development understood not simply in terms of economic growth, but also as a means to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence. (UNESCO, 2001, p.11) Social Development Sustainable development, as described above, necessarily includes social development. In the book entitled, Models of International Collaboration in Social Work Education, by Healy, Asamoah, and Hokenstad (2003), D. Sanders (1982), describes social development as a movement, a perspective, and a practice mode. As a movement, its major concern is with "social justice and equitable distribution of resources...commitment to the development and optimal use of human resources, involvement of people in their own development, [and] integrated economic and social development" (Healy, Asamoah, & Hokenstad, 2003, p. 104). The author goes on to say that social development as a perspective purports a philosophical view- that is, working with people involves a positive belief in the openness "to social change through optimizing inherent strengths and capacities of individuals, families and communities" (p. 104). Social development as a practice mode utilizes a social change framework at the macro level that focuses on "institutional revitalization, development at multiple levels of practice, capacity building, and exercising a political course of action" in order to "ensure a greater responsiveness of institutions in resource allocation and policy decisions" in meeting people's lifestyles, value systems, and needs (Healy, Asamoah, & Hokenstad, 2003, p. 104). Midgley (1995), in Ramanathan and Link (1999), further defines social development as "a process of planned change designed to promote well-being of the population as a whole in conjunction with a process of economic development" (p. 196). He emphasizes the point that "social development harnesses the power of economic development for social welfare purposes" in promoting human well-being in association with a dynamic, ongoing process of economic development. The social development perspective, views economic and social processes as equally significant parts of the development process. Both social development and economic development are essential in order to bring about important improvements in the well-being of the population as a whole. Midgley (1995) states, "Social development is a distinctive social intervention," and "social work and social development are not synonymous, but interlinked" (Ramanathan & Link, 1999, p. 200). Both are concerned not only with well-being, but also with dependence on human agency to achieve this goal. Social workers need to develop skills in interventions "that stress human capital, social capital, productive employment and self employment" (Ramanathan & Link, 1999, p. 202). Hence, social development refers to a process of organizational and societal levels of change. Community Development One of the most important components in global social work practice is community development. Community development as a method of intervention has been able to revive communities and to remediate social problems and issues that have gone unanswered for generations. Social workers, along with other professionals, utilize their various skills to assist community members in developing resources and in promoting networks that enable a community to become a source of social, economic, political, and cultural support to its citizens (Brueggemann, 2002). While it is important to understand this process in a national context, the multilevel changes brought about by globalization have resulted in the need to view community development on an international scale as well. Each country brings its own unique structure, trends, and priorities to the process of organizing, planning, and developing (Campfens, 1997). Several authors (Khinduka, 1975; Pantoja & Perry, 1992; Campfens, 1997; Brueggemann, 2002) define community development by way of summarizing its general goals: (1) to educate, motivate, and mobilize people for self-help through the understanding of multiple forces and processes (political, economic, personal strengths) that keep citizens in a state of poverty, economic dependence, and powerlessness; (2) to enable citizens to develop positive relationships, collaborations, and leadership skills, as well as advocate on a grassroots level; (3) to utilize an organized decision making process in order to develop self-chosen plans and goals for a self-sustaining community. Healy (2008) states that the responsibility of social workers involved in community development is to not only support the decision making process of community members, but to assist, facilitate, and promote indigenous leadership towards self-selected goals. Community development is a term that depicts an array of professional activities to improve the well being of community residents, has a history of spanning across disciplines, and involves a range of practices dedicated to improving the strengths and effectiveness of neighborhoods, villages, and community life (Sowers & Rowe, 2007). Brief History of Global Community Development The history of international community development has generated both implicit and explicit purposes for communities in the hopes of creating a better quality of life for local people. Some of the first implicit international community developers were foreign missionaries (e.g., Gordan Hall, Luther Rice, Adoniram Judson, Samuel Newell, and Gordon Noff). Their work began over two hundred years ago, in 1809, in such countries as India, Burmese, China, Japan, Africa, the Philippines, and parts of Europe (Bushnell, 1909). The focus of these missionaries, apart from their goal of evangelism, included a desire to become involved in community development activities through engagement in the life and culture of the indigenous people of those societies. Their development work resulted in training adults to become teachers, forming schools for children, and generally attempting to raise the standard of living for all people in the community. Another group, the social thinkers, was also engaged in implicit community development. Perhaps in reaction to the lack of development, social thinkers suggested withdrawing from society to form ideal communities. In the late 1800's, intentional utopian communities were met with mixed success. Groups such as the New Australian Movement, led by William Lane in Paraguay, brought people together for the purpose of building an ideal society based on brotherhood: Come and work as free men for each other, to labour on the common land for the common good, and not for the self alone, or for the selfish greed of another! One man by himself is powerless, but men in a body are strong! (Australian Encyclopaedia, 1926). Although many utopian societies failed, they did leave the legacy of regional community planning. These community planning skills were carried from the utopian societies into the 1920s and 1930s, particularly in East Africa. In Africa, these community development initiatives were seen as a way of enhancing and strengthening village people's lives with indirect support to local people from European colonial authorities. Today, we would be concerned about the impact of colonialism in community development. Another social thinker, Mohandas Gandhi, who is sometimes referred to as a social worker in his biographies, implemented African community development ideas as a core of his South African Ashram (self-governance). He later introduced it in India as part of the Swaraj movement to launch economic interdependence at the village level. Gandhi used his community development tools along with a new political objective of liberating India from colonial rule (Brown, 1980; Pandey, 2005). In spite of the community work being done overseas, the term 'community development' did not come to fruition in North America until the late 19th century and early 20th century (Brueggemann, 2002). The influences of certain groups, such as charity organization societies, cooperative extension services, universities, and the federal government, spearheaded and simultaneously impacted the field of community development. All of these focused on different intervention methodologies, including citizen participation, social planning, 'single-issue' grassroots organizations, training for international community development work, group planning strategies, organizational development, and community improvement projects. In the late 1960's, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson established legislation, i.e., "the War on Poverty," and various programs in response to an escalating poverty rate. Federal funds were used to combat poverty and further the ideas inherent in community development. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 established the Office of Equal Opportunity to manage such programs as Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), Operation Head Start, Community Action Programs (CAP), Rural Area Development, Model Cities, Neighborhood Youth Corps, and Job Corps. Other programs such as the Peace Corps and Upward Bound were also developed. The 1980's brought the third wave of Community Development Corporations (CDCs), which were non-profit organizations, locally based, with the goal of serving low income communities through developing a variety of profitable community resources in cooperation with both the private and public sectors for the benefit of the community. The 1990's produced a renewed emphasis upon faith-based organizations (FBOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (Brueggeman, 2002; Midgley, 1995). Today, in the 21st Century, a community development partnership is reemerging among NGOs, FBOs, international aid organizations, international governments, national governments and local citizens. The May/June Issue 2009 In the United States, we stand on the verge of significant funding and program planning through a renewed interest in and commitment to the development of local, national, and international communities. The manuscripts in this issue include scholarly contributions, case studies, description of faculty/student partnerships, student/community participation, and book reviews that illustrate the practice of sustainable development, social development, and community development. The countries reflected in this issue span across the globe and include Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Thailand, Malawi, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Latvia. All of the articles reflect the practice of sustainable, social, and community development skills including assessment, planning, intervention, and evaluation. The feature article of the issue, Disaster Management: Strengths and Community Perspectives, by Ngoh Tiong Tan, along with a scholarly article by Leslie H. Wind, Karen Kayser, and Richard Shankar, entitled Culture and Recovery: Challenges to Providing Disaster Relief After the Tsunami in South India, reflect the importance of community, social, and sustainable development. Tan's article focuses on the disaster management process utilizing a community development perspective that provides a framework for social recovery and disaster management. Emphasis is placed on relationships among the people as they experience the grieving over and the rebuilding of their lives. He also stresses the importance of partnering with communities that have been affected by disasters as efforts are made to physically, emotionally, and mentally recover. His work signifies that each community has particular strengths that must be identified and utilized in the rebuilding process. Wind, Kayser, and Shankar highlight the specific challenges communities face in the wake of natural disasters, such as the Tsunami in South India. They stress the importance of cultural context in the shaping of relief efforts at the individual and community levels. Specifically, cultural and religious barriers may prevent certain first responders from being allowed to assist communities. These same barriers may even prohibit members of a certain social or economic status within countries from access to needed services. The article outlines the deeply-rooted cultural norms that can assist and/or hinder international disaster recovery efforts. A third article demonstrates the four pillars of sustainable development described earlier in this editorial. The article written by Diana Rowan and Davie B. Kabwira, Empowering HIV/AIDS Orphans Through Teaching Vocational Trades: A SWOT Analysis of a Community-Based Orphan Training Program in Malawi, describes a successful approach to sustainable community development that has been used within a community that has been dramatically affected by HIV/AIDS. The approach focuses on the economic self-sustainability of community members. The program evaluation case study explains how one program is working to address the cultural needs of young people in Malawi who have been orphaned because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Career training and lending programs are analyzed to assess strengths and limitations in regards to their effectiveness in combating the economic decline in these communities. Hence, a model is suggested for achieving sustainable economic development with an at-risk population. The fourth article clearly demonstrates collaborative community development efforts among key partners both within and outside the community. Neil Vincent's article, The Development of an International Social Work Collaboration in Kenya: A Critical Analysis, examines and evaluates a global partnership and collaborative effort between multidisciplinary faculty and students at DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois and Tangaza College in Nairobi, Kenya. Important contextual issues and challenges in this study abroad course, such as institutional support, relationship building, political and cultural contexts, resource inequities, reciprocity, historical and sociopolitical perspectives, and academic colonialism, are discussed. The fifth article discusses the issues affiliated with aging and their impact on the developing and developed world. Dhrubodhi Mukherjee, author of Global Aging and International Social Work Practice: A Developing Country Perspective, reviews data in which projected figures related to the global aging population are presented. He challenges the global social work community to evaluate their readiness to handle the policy practice issues and social planning efforts associated with an increasingly aging population. His article prompts the global community to become proactive regarding the issues relating to the "graying of the globe." Finally, this issue presents three book reviews: Social Work in a Sustainable World, written by Nancy L. Mary and reviewed by John Morrison; Eastern European Adoption: Policies, Practices, and Strategies for Change written by Josephine A. Ruggiero, and reviewed by Vita Roga; and Effective Community Participation in Coastal Development written by Golam M. Mathbor, reviewed by Ngoh Tiong Tan. All three books add important information to the study and implementation of sustainable development, social development, and community development. Dialogue among social workers is crucial in order to exchange knowledge and ideas. I encourage readers, scholars, and students to begin discussions regarding the "Common Base of Global Social Work Practice" via the Blog, keeping in mind the concepts of sustainable development, social development, and community development. The Blog is accessible through http://www.globalsocialwork.org and http://globalsocialwork.wordpress.com. Thank you all for your continued participation and support. Enjoy the second issue of the JGSWP!
Jan A. Rodgers, LCSW, BCD, MLIS
References Jose, A. (1926). Australian Encyclopaedia (Vol. 2, p. 190). Sydney, Australia: Angus and Robertson Limited. Brown, J.M. (1980). Makers of the 20th Century: M.K. Gandhi. History Today. 30(5), 16-21. Brueggeman, W.G. (2002). The practice of macro social work (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Campfens, H. (Ed.). (1997). Community development around the world: Practice, theory, research, training. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Dominelli, L. & Bernard, W.T. (2003). Broadening horizon: International exchanges in social work. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. Healy, L. (2008). International social work: Professional action in an interdependent world (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Healy, L.M., Asamoah, Y.W., & Hokenstad, M.C. (2003). Models of International collaboration in social work education. Alexandra, VA: Council on Social Work Education. Hokenstad, M.C. & Midgley, J. (1997). Issues in international social work: Global challenges for a new century. Washington, D.C.: NASW Press. Khinduka, S.K. (1975). Community development: Potentials and limitations. In R.M. Kramer & H. Specht (Eds.), Readings in community organization practice (2nd ed., pp.175-183). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Midgley, J. (1995). Social development: The developmental perspective in social welfare. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Pandey, G. (2005). Notions of community: Popular and subaltern. Postcolonial Studies, 8(4), 409-419. Pantoja, A. & Perry, W. (1992). Community development and restoration: A perspective. In F. Rivera and J. Erlich (Eds.), Community organizing in a diverse society. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ramanathan, C. & Link, R. (1999). All our futures principles and resources for social work practice in a global era. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Rodgers, J. (2008). Editorial: The launching of the new journal. Journal of Global Social Work Practice, 1(1), 1. Retrieved March 30, 2009, from http://www.globalsocialwork.org/vol1no1_rodgers.html. Sanders, D. (1982). The developmental perspective in social work. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii School of Social Work. Sowers, K & Rowe, W. (2007). Social work and social justice from local to global perspectives. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. United Nations. (2005). World Summit Outcome Document, New York, U.S.A., Sept. 15, 2005 60th Session of the General Assembly. Items 48 and 121. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from http://www.who.int/hiv/universalaccess2010/worldsummit.pdf. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2001). The universal declaration on cultural diversity, Paris, France, Nov. 2, 2001 31st Session of the General Conference of UNESCO. (ELT-2002/WS/9). Retrieved May 15, 2009, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf. About the Author
Jan A. Rodgers, LCSW, BCD, MLIS is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Graduate School of Social Work at Dominican University River Forest, Illinois, USA. |