i s w
https://doi.org/10.1177/00208728221149556
International Social Work
2024, Vol. 67(1) 32 –37
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00208728221149556
journals.sagepub.com/home/isw
Is indigenisation a social justice risk?
Exploring indigenisation of social
work in Africa through the lens of
universalism versus relativism of
social work ethics and values
Prince Chiagozie Ekoh
University of Calgary, Canada; University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria
Abstract
With the indigenisation of social work gathering momentum, the lens of universalism and relativism
can highlight some critical social justice concerns. Sociocultural beliefs around human rights and
gender equality, reproductive health and traditional fostering, among others, pose unprecedented
dilemmas for social workers in Africa and indigenous societies globally. Furthermore, the blind
pursuit of indigenisation can reinforce discriminatory and oppressive beliefs and practices.
To rectify this, developing ethical decision-making screens and additional research promoting
indigenous cultural competency within the social justice goal of social work is needed.
Keywords
Africa, ethics, indigenisation, relativism, social justice, universalism, values
Introduction
There is a growing call for the indigenisation of social work practice globally, born out of the
requirement to better serve the needs of indigenous people (Anucha, 2008; Ugiagbe, 2015) and the
realisation of the failures of Western social work methods to do so (Ugiagbe, 2015). In Africa,
indigenisation of social work involves reviewing the knowledge, theories, methods, approaches
and practices imposed by the West and including local values and principles for more efficient and
effective problem-solving (Anucha, 2008).
The value of the indigenisation of social work in Africa cannot be overemphasised; however, as
Zhang and Huang (2008) caution, social workers risk reinforcing structures supporting discrimina-
tion, inequality, oppression and other injustices when they uncritically follow indigenous
sociocultural beliefs. Universalism versus cultural relativism offers a platform to consider the vari-
ous ethical dilemmas in the indigenisation of social work in Africa.
Corresponding author:
Prince Chiagozie Ekoh, Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T3B 2V6, Canada.
Email: [email protected]
1149556 ISW0010.1177/00208728221149556International Social WorkEkoh
research-article2023
Brief Note
Ekoh 33
Social workers in Africa and some indigenous communities may be torn between adhering to
social work ethics and values in their totality (universalism) and selectively applying them within
existing indigenous cultural beliefs, norms and laws (relativism). Across this divide, ethics and
values, a standard unifying feature of the social work profession (Healy, 2007), may become more
divisive than unifying. In this brief piece, I will draw from arguments on universalism and relativ-
ism to explore critical social justice issues that may be impacted by indigenising social work in
Africa.
Universalism versus relativism argument in social work
Dolgoff et al. (2005) posited that there are two competing schools of thought in the space of eth-
ics: deontological, which ‘stresses the importance of fixed moral rules’, arguing that ‘an action
is inherently right or wrong, that ethical rules are universal’ (p. 43), and teleological, which
posits that ethics are dependent on ‘the context in which they are made or on the consequences
that result’ (p. 42).
These two schools of thought underscore the debate on the universality of social work values
and ethics, with universalists arguing that every human has the same rights, which supersede cul-
tural beliefs, and relativists postulating that culture is the single reference of what is considered
ethical, and morals are culturally specific (Gray, 2005). Social workers in Africa and many indig-
enous societies encounter these dilemmas when adapting social work principles in their practice
within their cultural contexts. Most professional social work bodies in Africa (i.e. Ghana Association
of Social Workers, Kenya National Association of Social Workers and Nigerian Association of
Social Workers, among others) have not established procedures for adapting social work principles
and ethics into different African cultural contexts. This puts the burden of decision-making on
frontline practitioners, leading to varying and inconsistent practices concerning gender equality
and ethnic, religious and sexual minorities (George and Ekoh, 2020; Omozusi, 2021). Thus, social
workers practising from a cultural relativist lens may uphold cultures that oppress and discriminate
against women, older people, people living with disabilities, and sexual, ethnic and religious
minorities. At the same time, universalists may negate the importance of African cultures, such as
communal living and Ubuntu, in their bid to universally apply social work principles and ethics.
Some of the critical social justice issues concerning indigenisation will be discussed through the
lens of universalism and relativism below.
Key social justice issues in the discourse of indigenisation
Anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory practice
An anti-discriminatory and oppressive practice, a cornerstone of social work practice, guarantees
human rights for minority groups. Social workers have the ethical mandate of preventing and
eliminating discrimination and oppression against people based on ethnicity, religion, race, nation-
ality, or mental and physical disabilities, as reflected in the International Federation of Social
Workers (IFSW)/International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) (2004) policy
documents.
This mandate can be a source of conflict for African and social workers worldwide within
cultures promoting discrimination. For instance, although South Africa became the first country
to abolish discrimination based on sexual orientation (Jacques, 2013), many African countries
have draconian laws against sexual minorities, with the argument that sexual minorities are a
Western import and against African cultures (George and Ekoh, 2020; Jacques, 2013). The
34 International Social Work 67(1)
Zimbabwean government overtly encourages discrimination against sexual minorities, and the
Nigerian government has a punishment of 14 years’ jail term for anyone caught in a same-sex act
and 5 years’ jail term for allies and advocates (George and Ekoh, 2020). African social workers
who uphold the core principles of the profession and challenge cultures and policies that pro-
mote oppression and discrimination are often viewed as ‘unAfrican’. In the face of this dilemma,
many have chosen to remain on the fence, avoiding any discourse relating to sexual minorities.
This may be viewed as social workers de facto sustaining the discriminatory and oppressive
practices.
Human rights and gender equality
Social workers have an ethical responsibility to advocate for human rights. Indeed, principles of
human rights (United Nations [UN], 1994) guide the theories, values, ethics and practice of social
work. However, many African cultural beliefs contradict human rights, and social workers advanc-
ing human rights may face harm. Also, indigenising social work in Africa may reinforce some of
these oppressive cultural beliefs, such as gender roles that subjugate women.
The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
has been ratified by 175 countries, including many African countries (United Nations Development
Programme [UNDP], 2004). However, 24 nations, primarily African and indigenous societies,
disagree with Article 16, which guarantees marriage and family life equality. While gender equal-
ity is supported in public leadership, gender equality at the family level is deemed a Western ploy
to destroy the fabric of African families (Mutua, 2000).
Other issues of contention about women’s rights in Africa include inheritance, land ownership,
and early and forced marriages (Healy, 2007), and some African cultures dictate how a woman
should dress, where and whom to visit, and their conduct in public and private spaces. Domestic
violence and denied rights to consensual sex in marriage are permitted in some cultures (Omozusi,
2021) (i.e. Section 55(1)(d) of the Penal Code of Northern Nigeria allows correctional assault on
women by their husbands). Some African scholars have challenged the CEDAW, with Ekoh and
Agbawodikeizu (2022) discovering that African social work scholars believe gender equality at
home is a Trojan horse sent to change African civilisation. This brings about a conflict between the
social work position on human rights and cultural traditions in areas of domestic violence, eco-
nomic dependency and freedom, and women’s quality of life.
Women’s reproductive rights
While the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade by the US Supreme Court drew much criticism from civil
society organisations and professional bodies, including the National Association of Social Workers
(NASW, 2022), women’s right to reproductive health is a mirage in many indigenous cultures in
Africa and worldwide (Guttmacher Institute, 2016). Many African countries limit abortion for
religious, moral, cultural and political reasons (Guttmacher Institute, 2016), placing women’s lives
at risk. In these societies and many others, social workers face conflicts between advocating for
women’s rights to health and self-determination, and respecting the norm and laws of their country.
On the one hand, the principle of self-determination and the right to reproductive health for women
are essential for the advancement and well-being of women, and social workers have an ethical
responsibility to promote this. On the other hand, a relativist social worker may feel obligated to
respect indigenous contexts (laws and practices), which are primarily maintained by the moral
argument that abortion is murder.
Ekoh 35
Female genital mutilation
Female genital mutilation, a custom believed to have existed in Africa and some parts of the
Middle East for more than 2500 years, involves partial or complete removal of female genitalia
(Mitchum, 2013) for cultural, religious and social reasons; to prepare young girls for woman-
hood; and to cleanse them (Oyowe, 2014). It has led to death, trauma and long-term effects,
especially during pregnancy and marriage (Von Der Osten-Sacken and Uwer, 2007). While the
universalist social workers’ approach to this issue is total condemnation, citing Article 3 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which posits that people should not be exposed to inhu-
mane, cruel treatment or torture (UN, 1994), a relativist social worker, in contrast, may argue
that the imposition of this article to discard centuries of indigenous culture is arrogant (Oyowe,
2014). They may also cite indigenous women’s belief that this practice is essential for the suc-
cess of their marriage and as a valued social status symbol, which aesthetically looks better and
attracts suitors (Mitchum, 2013).
Traditional fostering
In Western countries, foster care is a well-developed institution controlled by government mecha-
nisms (Washington et al., 2013), whereas in Africa, the practice is informal, with relatives, extended
family and friends overseeing the care of children (Isidienu, 2015). However, traditional foster care
has resulted in the widespread abuse of children (Nnam-Okechukwu et al., 2020; Olaore and Drolet
2016), with proponents of physical and emotional abuse arguing that it is a culturally accepted way
of training children.
Children’s welfare is within the purview of social work practice, and many societies empower
social workers to enforce child protection laws (Thompson, 2011). From the universalistic view,
social workers cite the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which grants children freedom
from every form of violence and abuse (UN, 1989). Hence, inflicting physical or emotional pain
on children violates human rights. On the other hand, culture relativists may argue that branding
this practice as abuse is a simplistic view that undermines its significance in the child-rearing cus-
toms of indigenous peoples and is responsible for moral decay, inappropriate behaviour and dimin-
ishing respect from children (Fay, 2019).
Self-determination versus Ubuntu
The ethic of self-determination fundamentally prevents social workers from dictating life choices
for service users and facilitates respect for service users’ worth and dignity, and decision-making
ability. In Africa, the principle of Ubuntu – you are because I am – means that we are all intercon-
nected. African scholars have argued that the emulation of a Western individualistic lifestyle is a
threat to African societies and a source of many of the problems Africans face (Silvawe, 1995),
leading the IFSW/IASSW (2004) to propose a moderately relative approach; the right to self-
determination should be to the extent that it does not affect the rights of others.
Furthermore, the culture of social stratification and traditional authority relationships divides
social workers in Africa between those who uphold the principle of individualisation/self-determi-
nation and those with a sense of responsibility for their clients’ choices, leading to some social
workers being directive in their counselling (Silvawe, 1995). Silvawe (1995) further argued that
self-determination is inappropriate for Africa because of Africa’s sense of communalism, recom-
mending group determination over self-determination.
36 International Social Work 67(1)
Conclusion and recommendations
Complete indigenisation and respecting human rights are challenging in the African context, as
shown through the six examples of universalism and relativism dilemmas. To address this, Dolgoff
et al. (2005) proposed the use of an ethical screen consisting of a hierarchy of considerations in
making ethical decisions: protection of life, equality and inequality, autonomy and freedom, least
harm, quality of life, privacy and confidentiality, and truthfulness and full disclosure. Healy (2007)
and Lenzerini (2016) argue for a different tactic – a dialogical approach to address the extreme
polarisation of these theories. This approach entails respecting indigenous cultures and practices
that do not constitute harm and implementing human rights to protect individuals from harm. This
approach also calls for humility in having conversations about culture with the recognition that
culture is dynamic; hence, culture can be changed or moulded to reflect contemporary human
rights issues and African beliefs (Gray, 2005).
Furthermore, the complexity of multicultural contexts calls for more research on ethics and
values in social work, focusing on how different indigenous cultures try to reshape their practice of
social work to mirror their peculiar societies, devoid of imperialist and colonial hand-me-downs,
and with sound ethical foundations. This will help social workers in different cultures develop bet-
ter ethical decision-making measures. Bodies of social work in African countries should also start
developing codes of ethics that are culture-sensitive and specialised ethical screens for decision-
making and cultural competency. The dynamism of culture as a concept that changes over time
should be reflected so that African and indigenous social workers do not rigidly hold onto cultural
beliefs that encourage oppression and discrimination, as this will defeat the social justice mission
of social work.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publica-
tion of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Prince Chiagozie Ekoh https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1787-536X
References
Anucha U (2008) Exploring a new direction for social work education and training in Nigeria. Social Work
Education 27(3): 229–242.
Dolgoff R, Loewenberg FM and Harrington D (2005) Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice. Belmont,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Ekoh PC and Agbawodikeizu PU (2022) Exploring ethical issues embedded in the call for indigenisa-
tion of social work education in Nigeria. Social Work Education. Epub ahead of print 25 July. DOI:
10.1080/02615479.2022.2104242.
Fay F (2019) Decolonizing the child protection apparatus: Revisiting child rights governance in Zanzibar.
Childhood 26(3): 321–336.
George EO and Ekoh PC (2020) Social workers’ perception of practice with lesbians, gays and bisexuals
(LGBs) in Nigeria. Journal of Comparative Social Work 15(2): 56–78.
Gray M (2005) Dilemmas of international social work: Paradoxical processes in indigenisation, universalism
and imperialism. International Journal of Social Welfare 14(3): 231–238.
Ekoh 37
Guttmacher Institute (2016) Fact sheet: Abortion in Africa. Available at: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/
default/files/factsheet/ib_aww-africa_0.pdf
Healy LM (2007) Universalism and cultural relativism in social work ethics. International Social Work 50(1):
11–26.
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW)/International Association of Schools of Social Work
(IASSW) (2004) Global definition of social work. Available at: www.ifsw.org or www.iassw-aiets.org
(accessed 21 February 2022).
Isidienu IC (2015) The family as the bedrock of Igbo traditional society. Journal of Modern European
Languages and Literature 1(4): 23–33.
Jacques G (2013) Sexual minorities in Africa: A challenge for social work. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social
Services 25(2): 158–177.
Lenzerini F (2016) Cultural identity, human rights, and repatriation of cultural heritage of indigenous peoples.
The Brown Journal of World Affairs 23(1): 127–141.
Mitchum P (2013) Slapping the hand of cultural relativism: Female genital mutilation, male dominance, and
health as a human rights framework. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law 19(4): 585–607.
Mutua M (2000) The African human rights system: A critical evaluation. Human development report, back-
ground paper, United Nations Development Programme, New York.
Nnama-Okechukwu C, Agwu P and Okoye U (2020) Informal foster care practice in Anambra State, Nigeria
and safety concerns. Children and Youth Services Review 112: 104889
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) (2022) News releases. https://www.socialworkers.org/
News/News-Releases/ID/2452/NASW-responds-to-leaked-draft-opinion-that-suggests-US-Supreme-
Court-may-overturn-Roe-v-Wade
Olaore AY and Drolet J (2016) Indigenous knowledge, beliefs and cultural practice for children and families
in Nigeria. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work 26(3): 254–270.
Omozusi M (2021) The social workers role in mitigating gender inequality in Nigeria: The feminist approach.
Available at: https://socialdialogue.online/sd23/16_article.html (accessed 21 February 2022).
Oyowe OA (2014) An African conception of human rights? Comments on the challenges of relativism.
Human Rights Review 15(3): 329–347.
Silvawe GW (1995) The need for a new social work perspective in an African setting: The case of social
casework in Zambia. The British Journal of Social Work 25: 71–84.
Thompson N (2011) Crisis Intervention. Dorset: Russell House Publishing Ltd.
Ugiagbe EO (2015) Social work is context-bound: The need for indigenization of social work practice in
Nigeria. International Social Work 58(6): 790–801.
United Nations (UN) (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/
instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child
United Nations (UN) (1994) Human Rights and Social Work: A Manual for Schools of Social Work and
the Social Work Profession. Geneva: UN Centre for Human Rights; International Federation of Social
Workers; International Association of Schools of Social Work.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2004) Human Development Report 2004: Cultural
Liberty in Today’s Diverse World. New York: Oxford University Press.
Washington T, Gleeson JP and Rulison KI (2013) Competence and African American children in informal
kinship care: The role of the family. Children and Youth Services Review 35(9): 1305–1312.
Von Der Osten-Sacken T and Uwer T (2007) Is female genital mutilation an Islamic problem? Middle East
Quarterly 14(1): 29–36.
Zhang X and Huang Y (2008) A reflection on the indigenization discourse in social work. International Social
Work 51: 611–622.
Author biography
Prince Chiagozie Ekoh is a teaching fellow at the Department of Social Work, University of Nigeria, and a
graduate student at the Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, Canada.
