by Philip Monte Verde
This post is the conclusion of a five part series on cultural responsiveness in action. For an introduction to cultural responsiveness, click here. These posts are intended to be 'strategies' we can use, but more importantly point to an improved way of thinking. While written for social workers through the lens of refugee work, the lessons, it is hoped, are appropriate for all sorts of professionals.
To access the complete series, click here.
Adaptability
Culture does not exist in a vacuum, and peoples are not their encyclopedia entries. Even when a social worker has been working with a culture other than one’s own for a while it is still tempting to fall back on stereotypes. Stereotypes do not necessarily have to be negative, but even positive ones can affect one’s work. Saying a chosen culture is particularly humble or happy or talkative is not bad in itself. But it removes individuality and, perhaps as important, it removes nuance.
Consider this from a social worker’s point of view, especially if one’s family has been in the United States for generations. We make a habit of pointing out the differences between the Greatest Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, etc. There are articles, memes, stereotypes, and jokes about this. It is generally accepted that American culture, norms, attitudes, fashion, politics and so much more changes with each generation, so why wouldn’t this be true of other cultures to a lesser or greater degree?
Next to consider and ask questions about is the America effect. It is certainly worth learning about the spiritual culture of Karen refugees. But if so much of what they consider sacred is tied to the land in Burma (Paul, 2018), how do individuals, groups, and communities change when they are resettled here? What effect does a more individualistic American society have on traditionally collectivist groups?
These changes to American culture are called cultural adaptation, “the processes through which individuals become proficient in the values, beliefs, and behaviors of a given culture” (Acevedo-Polakovich et al., 2014, p. 204). Immigrants and refugees of different ages will adapt at different rates, with younger people absorbing the new culture at a faster rate (Lui, 2015). For many youth there is a meta-message that their first culture is backwards and shameful (Monte Verde, Watkins, Enriquez, Nater-Vazquez, & Harris, 2019; Souto-Manning & Hanson-Mitchell, 2009), leading to rifts in the home and in people’s heads.
Differences abound not just in the culture of the country of origin/refugee camp and America, but within American cities themselves. One could perhaps imagine how life would be different for a refugee in Boston versus one in Texas, but Stefanie Chambers (2017) showed it goes surprisingly deeper than that. She writes of the two American cities with the largest population of resettled Somali refugees, Columbus, Ohio and Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota (Chambers, 2017). Despite both being Midwest cities with similar populations of both refugees and non-refugees, Somalis in the Twin Cities have done much better economically, socially, and politically (Chambers, 2017). Chambers points to Minneapolis/St. Paul having a more welcoming atmosphere for refugees, more refugee involvement in government, and better portrayals of resettled refugees in the media than Columbus (Chambers, 2017). These are all factors that would not be immediately visible at a surface level view of the two cities.
Culture shifts over time and over space. What can be called a best practice now may have been considered science fiction in 2010 and may be considered laughably naive in 2030. Adaptability is a core feature of cultural responsiveness. In an ever-changing world species, humans, and social workers who adapt are the ones that always do best.
This post is the conclusion of a five part series on cultural responsiveness in action. For an introduction to cultural responsiveness, click here. These posts are intended to be 'strategies' we can use, but more importantly point to an improved way of thinking. While written for social workers through the lens of refugee work, the lessons, it is hoped, are appropriate for all sorts of professionals.
To access the complete series, click here.
Adaptability
Culture does not exist in a vacuum, and peoples are not their encyclopedia entries. Even when a social worker has been working with a culture other than one’s own for a while it is still tempting to fall back on stereotypes. Stereotypes do not necessarily have to be negative, but even positive ones can affect one’s work. Saying a chosen culture is particularly humble or happy or talkative is not bad in itself. But it removes individuality and, perhaps as important, it removes nuance.
Consider this from a social worker’s point of view, especially if one’s family has been in the United States for generations. We make a habit of pointing out the differences between the Greatest Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, etc. There are articles, memes, stereotypes, and jokes about this. It is generally accepted that American culture, norms, attitudes, fashion, politics and so much more changes with each generation, so why wouldn’t this be true of other cultures to a lesser or greater degree?
Next to consider and ask questions about is the America effect. It is certainly worth learning about the spiritual culture of Karen refugees. But if so much of what they consider sacred is tied to the land in Burma (Paul, 2018), how do individuals, groups, and communities change when they are resettled here? What effect does a more individualistic American society have on traditionally collectivist groups?
These changes to American culture are called cultural adaptation, “the processes through which individuals become proficient in the values, beliefs, and behaviors of a given culture” (Acevedo-Polakovich et al., 2014, p. 204). Immigrants and refugees of different ages will adapt at different rates, with younger people absorbing the new culture at a faster rate (Lui, 2015). For many youth there is a meta-message that their first culture is backwards and shameful (Monte Verde, Watkins, Enriquez, Nater-Vazquez, & Harris, 2019; Souto-Manning & Hanson-Mitchell, 2009), leading to rifts in the home and in people’s heads.
Differences abound not just in the culture of the country of origin/refugee camp and America, but within American cities themselves. One could perhaps imagine how life would be different for a refugee in Boston versus one in Texas, but Stefanie Chambers (2017) showed it goes surprisingly deeper than that. She writes of the two American cities with the largest population of resettled Somali refugees, Columbus, Ohio and Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota (Chambers, 2017). Despite both being Midwest cities with similar populations of both refugees and non-refugees, Somalis in the Twin Cities have done much better economically, socially, and politically (Chambers, 2017). Chambers points to Minneapolis/St. Paul having a more welcoming atmosphere for refugees, more refugee involvement in government, and better portrayals of resettled refugees in the media than Columbus (Chambers, 2017). These are all factors that would not be immediately visible at a surface level view of the two cities.
Culture shifts over time and over space. What can be called a best practice now may have been considered science fiction in 2010 and may be considered laughably naive in 2030. Adaptability is a core feature of cultural responsiveness. In an ever-changing world species, humans, and social workers who adapt are the ones that always do best.
