Social workers in multi-cultural societies: Using a ... - SAGE Journals

3 downloads 0 Views 144KB Size Report
Tova Band-Winterstein, Department of Gerontology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel. Email: [email protected].il ...
Article

Social workers in multi-cultural societies: Using a phenomenological lens to develop an integrative approach

Qualitative Social Work 2017, Vol. 16(1) 44–59 ! The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1473325015599836 qsw.sagepub.com

Anat Freund School of Social Work, University of Haifa, Israel

Tova Band-Winterstein Department of Gerontology, University of Haifa, Israel

Abstract Multi-culturalism is a common reality, and is expected to become even more significant in the future. One of its challenges is the need for professionals, especially social workers, to accommodate their practice to clients of various cultures. Their role demands cultural sensitivity, acceptance, a non-judgmental containing attitude and professional skills. This article will show how phenomenology can shed new light on the concept of cultural sensitivity and its implications on future interventions. We demonstrate this approach by looking at social workers’ various encounters with social problems in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in Israel. Several phenomenological categories will be discussed: The life-world; intentionality; the self with others; language; stock of knowledge at hand. Through the phenomenological lens, we will expose the inherent duality in the work of social workers in a multi-cultural society: awareness to cultural codes and professional ethics. Keywords Cross-cultural, culture, faith, phenomenology

Over recent decades, Western society has been undergoing a transitional process—from a homogenous to a heterogeneous multi-cultural society (Koopmans, 2010; Norris and Inglehart, 2012). Sometimes, a cultural minority chooses to Corresponding author: Tova Band-Winterstein, Department of Gerontology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel. Email: [email protected]

Freund and Band-Winterstein

45

segregate itself (in various degrees) from the rest of society, and live according to its own codes. However, it is imperative to ensure that a dialogue exists amongst the various groups within the mainstream society. Treatment is one of the places where such a dialogue occurs; especially when the professional and the client come from different communities. This paper uses a phenomenological perspective as a heuristic device to describe the experience of professionals working in multi-cultural societies. More specifically, we focus on the encounter between Israeli social workers and clients from the faith-based, Jewish ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) community. In such cases, social workers must deal with various psycho-social phenomena, e.g. intimate partner violence, mental health, old age, and family issues. The current paper presents integrative insights, based on a series of qualitative-phenomenological studies, which we conducted over recent years.

Cultural sensitivity People from different cultures may have different perceptions and display different behaviour in similar situations. One way to respond to this is through cultural sensitivity, focused on solidarity with and empathy towards cultural minorities. This approach involves the development of three aspects: cultural awareness, cultural values, and cultural skills. This raises the importance of multicultural intervention defined by concepts such as: cultural sensitivity, intercultural competence, intercultural effectiveness, and cultural skills (Ridley et al., 1994). The social work profession takes part in cross-cultural encounters with clients from different backgrounds (Ben-David and Amit, 1999). Knowledge, understanding, acceptance, and sensitivity are prerequisites for professional social work that involves cultural and human diversity (Chau, 1990). This type of culturally sensitive treatment includes the development of three skills: ‘‘cultural awareness’’, referring to the therapist’s awareness of her own personal background, values, perceptions, and views, which may affect the therapist– client relationship. ‘‘Cultural knowledge’’ relates to the therapist’s information about the client’s culture. ‘‘Cultural skills’’ concern the therapist’s ability to implement a culturally sensitive intervention strategy that meets the client’s expectations (Chau, 1990). The professional literature also relates to ‘‘cultural competence’’: the behavior, characteristics, and procedures allowing the organization or individuals to function effectively and efficiently in multicultural situations (Ridley et al., 1994). Cultural competence demands that social workers provide proper evaluations, exhibit a good level of understanding, and demonstrate responsibility regarding their own beliefs and opinions. At the same time, they must increase their multicultural knowledge and fulfill their client’s treatment expectations (Marsh, 2004). Culturally sensitive treatment is not an absolute or homogeneous strategy. Instead, each individual intervention should be adapted to the specific culture, values, views, beliefs, and perceptions of its own reality (Baum, 2007a). Bilu and Witztum (1993)

46

Qualitative Social Work 16(1)

further claim that gaining knowledge about the client’s culture is not enough when it comes to culturally sensitive treatment. The therapist should understand both her clients and their cultural heterogeneity on a deep level, in order to suggest the specific interventions that best fit their culture.

Ultra-orthodox society as a faith-based community A faith-based community is a religious group that is segregated, despite its interaction and complex relationship with the general population. Such a community is fundamental in its ideology and way of life, and deals with modernization and acculturation issues (Ringel and Park, 2008). The Jewish ultra-Orthodox community is a differentiated group within Jewish society in Israel and worldwide, characterized by extreme views regarding faith and religious practice. It is characterized by community discipline, stemming from its subordination to rabbinical authority, which encourages strong loyalty to the community, while dictating strict behavioral codes. The ultra-Orthodox ‘‘negotiate’’ and depend on the secular society, especially regarding general issues and, in particular, subjects such as mental health, family violence, addictions, etc. In the eyes of an external observer, the Haredi population seems to be a homogeneous community (Bilu and Witztum, 1993), including large families where the father mainly studies Torah and the family is supported by the mother and by government allowances—representing an increasing burden for Israeli society. As a result, deep controversies have erupted between secular and Haredi communities regarding the latter’s contribution and involvement in the country’s economy, military service, and general agenda (Greenberg et al., 2010; Fass and Lazar, 2011). On the whole, the ultra-Orthodox sector is characterized as a determined and defined minority group in Israeli society, staunchly committed to the Halacha—Jewish Laws (Goodman and Witztum, 2002). Jewish ultra-Orthodox groups and factions regard the secular lifestyle as a ‘‘common enemy’’, due to the heresy and secularism that characterizes its institutions (Heilman and Witztum, 1997). Therefore, the Haredi society is somewhat removed and isolated from the secular environment. Its members strive to solve most conflicts within the ultra-Orthodox framework, except for extreme and exceptional cases (Fass and Lazar, 2011; Goodman and Witztum, 2002; Popovsky, 2010). The Haredi sector is composed of different factions and groups with specific leadership (Heilman and Witztum, 1997) and institutions, aimed at assisting people who belong to that specific group. The various groups, trends, and sub-groups are often differentiated from each other by their levels of openness towards the surrounding society and their attachment to tradition, ideology, and modernity, as well as by the extent of their openness towards external economic issues (Popovsky, 2010). Consequently, Jewish ultra-Orthodox groups differ in their disposition to expose themselves by seeking out professional and advanced treatment from the surrounding secular society (Goodman and Witztum, 2002).

Freund and Band-Winterstein

47

Social workers’ encounters with multi-cultural societies All over the world, social workers engage in cross-cultural encounters with clients from different backgrounds. Moreover, professional social work, involving cultural and human diversity, is founded on knowledge, understanding, acceptance, and sensitivity. Aiding Professionals (AP)—professionals who work in health and welfare professions—experience great challenges when attempting to meet the needs of people from different cultures in a way that is creative, professional, and responsible (Sue, 2006). Multicultural-oriented intervention is defined by cultural sensitivity, intercultural competence and effectiveness, and cultural skills (Ridley et al., 1994). As has been mentioned, culturally sensitive treatment involves the development of three skills: ‘‘cultural awareness’’, which relates to APs’ awareness of their own ethnic background, values, perceptions, and views and how they may affect their relationship with clients. ‘‘Cultural knowledge’’ is associated with APs’ preparation and knowledge of their client’s culture. ‘‘Cultural skills’’ is concerned with an AP’s ability to choose or create a culturally sensitive intervention strategy that meets the clients’ expectations (Chau, 1990). Research on the subject relates to ‘‘cultural competence’’: behavior, characteristics, and procedures that enable the effective and efficient functioning of the organization or individuals in multicultural situations (Ridley et al., 1994). Cultural competence relates to APs’ ability to evaluate and understand their client’s culture; in addition, APs must be aware of their own personal beliefs and opinions. Culturally sensitive treatment is not an absolute strategy and does not follow a specific model. Instead, every intervention is modified to fit the specific culture, including cultural values, views, beliefs, and perceptions of reality (Baum, 2007a). Witztum and Goodman (1998) further claim that when engaging in culturally sensitive treatment, the AP must observe the individual client and relate to his/her internal, cultural heterogeneity, aside from gaining knowledge of the patient’s culture, in order to suggest the specific intervention strategies that best suit the cultural context. A better and deeper understanding of the specific culture contributes to reducing potential obstacles and leads to more effective treatment (Baum, 2007a). Furthermore, Jaffe (1990) found that numerous APs tend to be ‘‘culturally locked in’’, while developing stereotypes and disregarding the clients’ cultural context. Arkin (1999) suggested that social work education should focus on the development of a multicultural approach and deal with culturally sensitive treatment contents, ethnic divergence, racism, repression, and discrimination. Baum (2007a) found that students in therapeutic and aiding disciplines generally feel a need to practice cultural sensitivity when working with clients from a different ethnic background or religion. They are further expected to accept and become acquainted with cultural divergence, standards, and characteristics during the treatment period. Out of the many different ways to study professionals working in multi-cultural societies, we chose the phenomenological path, as it reflects participants’ experiences of their encounter with ultra-Orthodox clients. The descriptive power of the phenomenological perspective enables a presentation of diverse views and

48

Qualitative Social Work 16(1)

explanations. In order to explore both the common and unique factors of the professionals’ experience, we shall use concepts such as life-world, intentionality, including space, self, dimensions of experience, language, and stock of knowledge (Sokolowsky, 2000). This article presents, in a holistic and integrative way, insights from several studies on social workers working in the Haredi community in various areas of practice. We wish to ‘‘capture’’ the experience of social workers’ encounters with their clients in different areas of the profession.

Method Sample and population The study was conducted using a purposeful sample (Patton, 2002), focused on selecting participants who best represent their population and reflect the researched phenomenon (Mason, 1996). The research sample consisted of 147 social workers in daily contact with Haredi clients. Participants included 11 men and 136 women (we note that the large majority of social workers in Israel are female): a total of 32 were ultra-Orthodox, 98 were national religious, and 17 were secular, with 5–40 years of experience. The social workers in the sample worked in public, private, and third sectors, welfare offices, and non-profit organizations: 50% were employed in welfare agencies (public), mostly with families and older adults dealing with issues such as divorce, miscarriage, formal caregivers, etc. Approximately, 20% worked in the private sector, mostly with individuals undergoing transition to an assisted living or nursing home, and 30% worked in the third sector (non-profit organizations), focusing on a wide range of particular groups and their needs. The participants worked in several domains related to social issues: about 20% of them worked with adult populations, about 30% worked with the people coping with mental disorders, about 20% worked with intimate partner violence and family violence (e.g. children, women, and adults), and the rest—about 30%—worked with families.

Research procedure Data were collected by third-year undergraduate social work students in qualitative research seminars over a three-year period. Prior to the interviews, these students underwent a training and reflection process (Finlay and Gough, 2003), including insights on their personal background, in addition to attitudes towards and opinions about relevant social work areas (such as miscarriage). They were asked, for example, how they identify themselves in relation to the participants. As a result of this process, the interviewers gained self-awareness, allowing them to focus on participants’ experiences. Participants were then recruited by contacting relevant welfare agencies and organizations. Each of the participants consented in writing to be interviewed after the researchers explained the nature of the study and its future

Freund and Band-Winterstein

49

use, and ensured confidentiality. Each interview lasted 60–90 minutes, and was recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Research tools Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted based on an interview guide, developed in an attempt to understand the participants’ experiences and their attributed meanings. The interview included four major topics: being a social worker in a multicultural society; being a social worker in an UOJ society; social work in the context of social problems and social phenomenon; being a social worker in the ultra-Orthodox society over a time perspective.

Data analysis All studies were analyzed according to the phenomenological analysis developed by Smith et al. (2009). For this article, we took an integrative view in relation to all of them. This was achieved by emphasizing relevant concepts, organized by phenomenological categorization. It was performed using horizontal coding process by finding statements about the participants’ experiences with the phenomenon (e.g. ways to address distress in the Haredi community). The next step was grouping the statements into units of meaning, including quotes to describe the participants’ experiences and perceptions (e.g. gathering quotes relating to the different ways to cope with social phenomena in the Haredi community). The following step involved identifying the emerging themes by shifting from the descriptive to the interpretive levels of analysis (e.g. conceptualization of the phenomena in phenomenological terms) (Smith et al., 2009). The re-constructed structure provided other insights into the experience of the professional and the personal encounter between social workers and the ultra-Orthodox community. This process was accompanied by on-going reflection, in order to be aware of our personal positioning as nonultra-Orthodox researchers (Finlay and Gough, 2003).

Trustworthiness Trustworthiness was achieved in several ways: the interview material was transcribed verbatim, enabling introspection into original narrations. The material was further reviewed separately by each of the researchers. Then, a peer crossexamination was held by working with another experienced qualitative colleague, serving as an external expert in qualitative research, who commented on and analysed the quotes together with the researchers (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Furthermore, both researchers are involved with ultra-Orthodox students, teaching in a social work educational program for the Haredi society. Therefore, we performed ongoing reflection and bracketing processes (Liamputtong, 2010). Lastly, the wide range of participants who narrated similar experiences contributed to the research’s trustworthiness (Patton, 2002).

50

Qualitative Social Work 16(1)

Findings The life-world The life-world reflects people’s taken-for-granted experiential world. Mutual coexistence between the individual and his/her world creates meaning and specific content, which determines the ways people think and act. The following findings show the unique life-world of the ultra-Orthodox clients, represented by the fact that seeking outside professional help is perceived as the last option. This is expressed in their life-world, which is rife with secrecy, taboos, intolerance, and a basically rigid and patriarchal society. The family comes to us as their last option, after trying to cope by themselves, consulting the rabbi, trying alternative treatments . . . parents wait until they cannot deal with it anymore and only then turn to therapy. They try every other possible option before therapy, such as spending a lot of money on natural foods, treatments or other bizarre alternatives. Families waste valuable time and money before they come to us (L., 28 years’ experience).

The family seeks all kinds of help in an attempt to avoid professional assistance for as long as possible. They go through a long journey in which the distress is not solved (and is sometimes even worsened), and turn to therapy only in extreme cases, when the relative’s situation is unbearable and the parents are helpless. Secrecy is a fundamental part of the ultra-Orthodox life world, as expressed by the next quote: People are very reluctant; it’s very frightening. This is the strongest fear related to matchmaking. I once had a client who suffered from depression and was very concerned about making a good match: ‘‘Who is going to take me? I am second-class goods’’ . . . (Z., 4 years’ experience)

Social workers describe the structured difficulty to accept ‘‘abnormality’’ in Haredi society. Another expression of this seclusion is associated with the fact that the people coping with mental disorders are perceived as second-class individuals and, as such, are expected to settle for less, compared to members of the normative population. The fears of being labeled as person with a problem create secrecy. Taboos are also common in the ultra-Orthodox way of life, as exemplified by the following quotation: Ultra-Orthodox society is characterized by several ‘‘taboos’’ related to certain themes such as faith, instincts or sex. You can sometimes feel their suffering as they long to talk to someone . . . (A., 2 years’ experience)

Freund and Band-Winterstein

51

The ultra-Orthodox population is led by an introspective dialogue based on a closed-minded approach toward issues that contradict Halacha (religious law) and the ways of the Torah. These themes are often rejected out of modesty; therefore, they are not part of ultra-Orthodox general discourse, despite the clients’ desire and need to address these issues during treatment. The social worker is aware of the taboos and their relation to distress, and may navigate sensitively between the two.

Intentionality Intentionality is defined as a conscious, mental act of interpreting experiences. Intentionality is reflective in nature and combines reference to the ‘‘what’’ (nuema) and the ‘‘how’’ (nuasis) of the experience. In our case, the ‘‘what’’ constitutes the encounter with the ultra-Orthodox clients. The ‘‘how’’ is related to the ways people make this experience livable, incorporate it successfully into their daily lives and the meanings they attribute to it (Sokolowsky, 2000; Spinelli, 1989). The ‘‘lived experiences’’ of social workers are expressed by intentionality in space, and experience with others.

Intentionality in space Humanistic space is qualitative, phenomenal, and inseparable from consciousness. It is place-, context-, time- and age-dependent; it both creates culture and is created by it. Experiencing space is a direct function of the ways in which people react to it (Bollnow, 1967; Valle and King, 1978). Intentionality in space, in our study, relates to the separation between the ultraOrthodox world and mainstream society. There no longer is an impenetrable boundary between them. Ultra-Orthodox patients and social workers solve the separation problem by finding acceptable bridges that allow them to interact—through the religious leaders in the community (rabbis): People go to the Rabbi for advice and ask questions . . . people feel the need for attachment . . . community is commitment . . . the community’s prominent personalities help bridge the gap between our world, as social workers, and their standards, as ultraOrthodox . . . For example, regarding child-[related] treatment, we request that parents are present in these meetings, while Rabbis are also involved in the process. The rabbis listen to the facts we present and generally we manage to bridge the gap (Z., 7 years’ experience).

Social work has become a significant profession, based on an understanding of the need for multicultural sensitivity. This sensitivity is expressed by the fact that clients need to address the rabbinic authority in order to gain the necessary support that enables the establishment of a therapeutic relationship. This is touchy ground, as the individuals seeking help must preserve the traditional core without losing

52

Qualitative Social Work 16(1)

contact with their community. Such an understanding leads to the foundation of a shared space, inhabited by rabbis, social workers, and clients. This integration allows clients to feel comfortable, as they are not required to choose between their private and professional space in order to find solutions to conflicts.

The self with others The self evolves throughout ongoing interactions and relationships with others in the world, as well as with ideas, objects, and people. Through mutual interactions with others, individuals build and conceptualize mental pictures of the material world. They are further directed towards these mental images and, accordingly, make important life choices, taken from the spectrum of possible reactions (Pollio et al., 1997; Sokolowsky, 2000; Spinelli, 1989). This will be discussed in the context of how the social worker is often perceived as an outsider, and what type of person is preferred when choosing a therapist. Findings show that the role of social work in the public ultra-Orthodox space is in the midst of a change process. This is expressed as follows: The term ‘social worker’ sounds terrible to them . . . everybody said it [dealing with a social worker] was the worst thing that could happen. Nobody was willing to talk to social workers, but today Rabbis refer to social workers, while educational counselors and school principals report on cases . . . The population used to avoid social workers and run away [from the very idea], but today they are involved and cooperate (B., 20 years’ experience).

Up until the recent past, intervention on the part of a social work was perceived as a threatening and disruptive, event, which sharply interferes with ultra-Orthodox family life. In contrast, today it is much more accepted. This enables effective intervention between the client and the social workers. This trend has been further expressed in recent years by more and more ultra-Orthodox individuals becoming social workers. This raises the question of who is the preferred social worker: An ‘‘insider’’ (ultra-Orthodox) or an ‘‘outsider’’ (non-ultra-Orthodox) social worker? Indeed, one does not need to be a drug addict in order to understand drug addicts, but I strongly believe that you should be assisted by someone from within your own society . . . There are many cultural issues that someone from the outside cannot grasp. Less resistance is encountered when you work from the inside and understand the culture (M., 11 years’ experience).

This participant discusses the idea that the social worker should not necessarily come from a similar background or have similar experiences in order to understand the client. However, in the case of a therapeutic encounter, she felt the cultural context was extremely significant.

Freund and Band-Winterstein

53

Another interviewee perceives social worker–client cultural diversity as an advantage: I believe that in many cases, a Haredi client should be assisted by someone from another society . . . Someone far from his/her own cultural world. It is often harder to share things one does not talk about when sitting with someone ‘‘similar’’. In this case [referring to a client], the fact that I am not someone she is familiar with and do not follow the same pattern allowed her to ask questions and relate to them without hesitating (O., 2 years’ experience).

According to O.’s belief, a Haredi client benefits most when treated by a social worker from a different cultural world. This creates a safe, therapeutic space where issues can be more openly and easily discussed.

Language Language is an essential meaning-making tool. It frames, labels, and thus creates reality. People direct themselves to language and use it as a dynamic tool to create and manipulate meaning. Richness of language and the use of metaphors enable people to discuss their emotional experiences, and thus understand their world and their place within it (Eisikovitz and Buchbinder, 1996; Gubrium and Holstein, 1993; Lakoff and Johnson, 1980).

Lack of therapeutic language Ultra-Orthodox clients lack therapeutic language, and are generally not used to speaking about themselves as individuals. This is clearly demonstrated in the next quote: I believe that from childhood or even from infancy, ultra-Orthodox society members do not embrace a perception of the self; this simply does not exist. People don’t understand that the whole conversation can be about them. What is this about? How long can we talk about me for? . . . In the secular society, going to therapy and talking about oneself is trivial . . . The basic perception is that you don’t need to be in the center, so [self-focused] treatment is very difficult (H., 4 years’ experience).

This quote shows that being a member of the Haredi community means being a part of a collective, not an individual. This perception is rooted in cultural norms that emphasize and prioritize community over individual needs. Therefore, taking part in individual therapy may create a dissonance with the social norms implanted in each member of the Haredi society.

Speaking Haredi Another aspect of language relates to the therapy session. In the following text, the social workers describe their own awareness regarding the need to use a specific

54

Qualitative Social Work 16(1)

language that is different from the conventional professional terminology. They are also aware of the need to become acquainted with and use sources from the client’s environment: If someone comes for treatment and claims that his goal is to overcome his ‘‘evil inclinations’’, I need to cope with this [attitude] and not try to persuade him to resolve the conflict between his Id and Super Ego, which I would normally do . . . This is not what he is looking for; he needs something else. . . .I can also use theological tools in social work. Instead of saying: ‘‘Look, you should do this and that’’, an allegory or a religious teaching works a lot better..

Language is the basis of the therapeutic session, and this social worker enlists his previous knowledge of the religious world in order to further the therapeutic process. Another aspect of ‘‘Speaking Haredi’’ is evident in the following quotes: One day, I called a client and she said: ‘‘I’m in a situation’’ . . . I said: ‘‘What situation?’’ Then I understood that she was pregnant . . . As for the swine flu – they call it Mexican flu because they don’t use the term ‘swine’. It’s like talking in code . . . (S., secular, 10 years’ experience)

Social workers need to be sensitive and become more aware of what can and cannot be said, and the proper way to talk about things that cannot be named directly. Even though this language is not in line with social work terminology, its use is a prerequisite for creating a therapeutic rapport.

Stock of knowledge at hand Processing relationships with others is not static; it changes over time and across situations, leading to the development of the ‘‘stock of knowledge at hand,’’ i.e. the meanings accumulated through life-world experience. The existence of this kind of knowledge creates a sense of ‘‘taken-for-grantedness’’ in the social world, based on a series of simple assumptions and ‘‘rules of thumb’’ emerging from life experiences (Kenyon and Randall, 2001). Daily religious rituals, such as prayers, provide a sense of belonging and safety in the community. Findings show that mutual assistance and informal social networks are taken for granted in the ultra-Orthodox society, and social workers use this to their benefit: There are various expressions of help and mutual involvement among the people coping with mental disorder . . . The Haredi population is strongly aware of benevolent acts and kindness . . . One of my clients lives in a Haredi neighborhood and the neighbors help a lot; they really care. It’s incredible (S., 10 years’ experience).

Freund and Band-Winterstein

55

Haredi society is enhanced by values such as mutual assistance and caring for the disadvantaged, provided that it recognizes the existence of members in need.

Discussion This paper reflects a phenomenological perspective and concepts as a heuristic device to describe the experiences of professional social workers working in multi-cultural societies. The phenomenological outlook enables a focused inside view and creates a sense of ‘‘being there,’’ based on ‘‘the things themselves’’ (Heidegger, 1993). Such a perspective makes it possible to highlight participants’ awareness of the diverse aspects of multi-cultural encounters. Describing the lifeworld of a distinctive community enables an awareness of the differences, and allows for the development of culturally sensitive tools, e.g. how to deal with secrecy, hiding, and the social price of seeking treatment (Greenberg et al., 2012). In regard to the unique life-world of the ultra-Orthodox, the participants describe the treatment and their relationships with the clients in terms that are specific to the Haredi world (Sokolowsky, 2000). Through the phenomenological concepts, we described the participants’ experiences and organized them into concepts, highlighting new meanings in the inter-cultural encounter. Segregated communities are ‘‘finite provinces of meaning’’ (McLain and Weigert, 1979). They have their own ethos, meaning, vocabulary, and rules of thumb. The findings paint a specific Haredi life-world, based on values such as collectivism; help-seeking as a last option; secrecy; taboos; intolerance; and being a rigid, patriarchal society. Therapists should be aware that the Haredi client comes to the therapeutic ‘‘arena’’ with these norms and perceptions, and meets the therapist’s (often very different) life-world (Freund and Band-Winterstein, 2015). For example, in the ultra-Orthodox society and life-world, collective principles—community needs and interests—are the primary value; individual and personal concerns take second place. In contrast, the therapeutic approach focuses on the client, while all close, related circles—e.g. the nuclear and extended family, the peer group, and the community—are integrative parts of the entire package of social services options available to clients (Shulman, 2006). The social worker should understand that the client not only perceives ‘‘talking about oneself’’ as illegitimate, but is also often unaccustomed to this procedure and unable to verbalize his own difficulties. Another aspect of this study describes intentionality in the context of a living space in Haredi society, understood through two dimensions: the penetrable border between the ultra-Orthodox world and mainstream society, and the tension between the rabbinical authorities and the professional authorities. For many years, the segregation between the Haredi community and the outside world meant that Haredi society dealt with social and individual problems using its own means and tools, such as rabbinical guidance. In terms of intentionality, the Haredi space was clearly distinguished from that of mainstream society. Recently, and as demonstrated by the findings, changes have taken place. There are now

56

Qualitative Social Work 16(1)

many more dialogues and interactions taking place between the two communities. This creates opportunities for new, professional treatment, professions, and knowledge. The old balance is in flux, and new meaning is being injected into the ‘‘living space’’ of the Haredi community (Tilley, 1994). The encounter between professional and religious authorities is one of the most significant research findings regarding the therapeutic meeting (Lifshitz and Glaubman, 2004). This conforms to findings of studies in other faith-based community, such as Christian societies (McAllister and Roberts-Lewis, 2010). The religious authority is the highest influence in a traditional closed society. The rabbi is also involved in the treatment of a wide range of problems, often in opposition to the therapist’s views. The more social workers understand the importance of their joint cooperation with rabbis, and the more the rabbis understand the true need to consult with professionals, the more the client benefits from this mutual mediation. In phenomenological terms, the infusion of Haredi and therapeutic spaces creates a new, integrated authority. It seems that the change process is like a spiral: stronger awareness leads to fewer concerns; more consultations lead to more professional involvement, all of which serves to contribute to diminishing fear levels, increasing legitimacy through community authority sources, more numerous consultations, and so on. Another significant finding deals with the question of determining which social worker is actually the most appropriate for a Haredi client: one from within or without the Haredi community? This relates to the concept of Self and Others, in the sense that the social worker is perceived as an outsider (Broadhurst, 2007). What is the meaning of being assisted by a professional from the same culture or from outside the community? There is no unanimous agreement or uniform answer to these questions. Research results indicate that Haredi clients do not always benefit from ultra-Orthodox social workers and often feel more comfortable with someone from outside the Haredi community—someone neutral, unacquainted with the ultra-Orthodox establishment, holding unbiased views, and with a different level of religiosity (Flicker et al., 2008; Ibaraki and Nagayama Hall, 2014; Jaffe, 1995). Furthermore, a social worker who is not ‘‘one of us’’ meets the client’s needs for the anonymity, discretion, and confidentiality required by the closed Haredi community. On the other hand, a proper diagnosis or identification of the client’s problem and needs requires a deep understanding of religious and halachic norms. For example, the Haredi social worker must be able to fully distinguish between religiously motivated behavior and a possible mental disorder (Huppert et al., 2007). Whereas cultural awareness is taken for granted, differences can be identified between Haredi and non-Haredi social workers in relation to specific encounters. The extant literature discusses the need for cultural sensitivity and understanding the cultural map. This study highlights the differences between Haredi and nonHaredi social workers in ways not previously discussed in the literature. The findings show that each group comes to the therapeutic encounter from a different starting point. Based on the phenomenological concepts of figure and ground

Freund and Band-Winterstein

57

(Merleau-Ponty, 1962), non-Haredi social workers have to learn the various social codes and bring them to the foreground, whereas Haredi social workers can move the community codes to the background and the professional codes to the foreground. To prepare for the encounter with the client, the non-Haredi social worker has to overcome the barriers derived from being a stranger, while the Haredi social worker has to overcome barriers stemming from familiarity. In order to create a culturally sensitive environment (Heilman and Witztum, 1997) during the therapeutic session, the non-Haredi social worker learns the codes of the community, whereas the Haredi social worker lives all the subtle nuances of these codes on a daily basis. This highlights the difference between a social worker from inside and one from outside the group (Baum, 2007b). We conclude with the phenomenological term of ‘‘becoming’’ (Heidegger, 1993). This refers to a significant ongoing process that takes place over time. The findings show that the Haredi society is currently transitioning—and undergoing various change processes. One such change is a greater willingness to seek out professional treatment. This article attempts to use a phenomenological lens to develop an integrative approach for social workers and professionals, in general, who should certainly take these ‘‘becoming’’ processes into account, while making sure they conduct themselves in a culturally sensitive fashion. It may suggest a working model for practitioners who encounter multiculturalism. Author contributions Both the authors contributed equally to the manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References Arkin N (1999) Supervision sensitive to students from a different culture: Difficulties and challenges. In: Rabin C (ed.) Being Different in Israel: Ethnicity and Gender in Therapy in Israel. Tel Aviv: Ramot, pp. 153–168, (in Hebrew). Baum N (2007a) It’s not only cultural differences: Comparison of Jewish Israeli social work students’ thoughts and feeling about treating Jewish Ultra-Orthodox and Palestinian Israeli clients. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 31: 575–589. Baum N (2007b) Social work practice in conflict-ridden areas: Cultural sensitivity in not enough. British Journal of Social Work 37: 873–891. Ben-David A and Amit D (1999) Do we have to teach them to be culturally sensitive? The Israeli experience. International Social Work 42: 347–358.

58

Qualitative Social Work 16(1)

Bilu Y and Witztum E (1993) Working with Jewish Ultra-Orthodox patients: Guidelines for a culturally sensitive therapy. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 17: 193–233. Bollnow OF (1967) Lived space. In: Lawrence N and O’Connor D (eds) Reading in Existential Phenomenology. New York: Prentice-Hall, pp. 178–186. Broadhurst K (2007) Parental help-seeking and the moral order: Notes for policy-makers and parenting practitioners on ‘the first port of call’ and ‘no one to turn to’. Sociological Research Online 12(6): 4. Chau KL (1990) A model for teaching cross-cultural practice in social work. Journal of Social Work Education 26(2): 124–133. Eisikovitz ZC and Buchbinder E (1996) Toward a phenomenological intervention with violence in intimate relationships. In: Eisikovits ZC and Edleson JL (eds) Future Interventions with Battered Women and their Families. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 186–200. Fass H and Lazar R (2011) Social work and the Haredi community in Israel: From rejection to acceptance as reflected in the narrative of a Haredi social worker. Reflections 17(4): 32–38. Finlay B and Gough L (eds) (2003). Reflexivity: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Health and Social Sciences. Oxford: Blackwell. Flicker SM, Waldron HB, Turner CW, et al. (2008) Ethnic matching and treatment outcome with Hispanic and Anglo substance-abusing adolescents in family therapy. Journal of Family Psychology 22: 439–447. Freund A and Band-Winterstein T (2015) Is it enough to ‘‘speak Haredi’’? Cultural sensitivity in social workers encountering Jewish ultra-Orthodox clients in Israel. British Journal of Social Work 45: 968–987. Goodman Y and Witztum E (2002) Cross-cultural encounters between care providers: Rabbis’ referral letters to a psychiatric clinic in Israel. Social Science and Medicine 55: 1309–1323. Greenberg D, Buchbinder JT and Witztum E (2012) Arranged matches and mental illness: Therapists’ dilemmas. Psychiatry 75: 342–354. Greenberg D, Kalian M and Witztum E (2010) Value-sensitive psychiatric rehabilitation. Transcultural Psychiatry 47(4): 629–646. Gubrium JF and Holstein JA (1993) Phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and family discourse. In: Boss PG, Doherty WJ, LaRossa R, Schumm WR and Steinmetz SK (eds) Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 651–672. Heidegger M (1993) Basic Concepts (Aylesworth GE trans). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Heilman SC and Witztum E (1997) Value-sensitive therapy: Learning from Ultra-Orthodox patients. American Journal of Psychotherapy 51: 522–541. Huppert JD, Siev Y and Kushner ES (2007) When religion and obsessive–compulsive disorder collide: Treating scrupulosity in ultra-orthodox Jews. Journal of Clinical Psychology 63(10): 925–941. Ibaraki AY and Nagayama Hall GC (2014) The components of cultural match in psychotherapy. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 33: 936–953. Jaffe ED (1990) The effect of age and ethnic background on ethnic stereotypes. International Social Work 33: 325–338. Jaffe ED (1995) Ethnicity and clients’ social worker preference: The Israeli experience. British Journal of Social Work 25: 615–633. Kenyon GM and Randall WL (2001) Narrative gerontology: An overview. In: Kenyon MG, Clark PG and Devries B (eds) Narrative Gerontology: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Springer, pp. 3–18.

Freund and Band-Winterstein

59

Koopmans R (2010) Trade-offs between equality and difference: Immigrant integration, multiculturalism and the welfare state in cross-national perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(1): 1–26. Lakoff G and Johnson M (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Liamputtong P (2010) Performing Qualitative Cross-Cultural Research. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lifshitz H and Glaubman R (2004) Caring for people with disabilities in the Haredi community: Adjustment mechanisms in action. Disability and Society 19(5): 469–486. Lincoln YS and Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage. Marsh JC (2004) Social work in a multicultural society. Social Work 49: 5–6. Mason J (1996) Qualitative Researching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McAllister JM and Roberts-Lewis AA (2010) Social worker’s role in helping the church address intimate partner violence: An invisible problem. Social Work & Christianity 37: 161–187. McLain R and Weigert A (1979) Toward a phenomenological sociology of the family: A programmatic essay. In: Burr WR, Hill R, Nye IF and Reiss IL (eds) Contemporary Theories About the Family, Vol. 2. New York: Free Press, pp. 160–205. Merleau-Ponty M (1962) The Phenomenology of Perception. London: RKP. Norris P and Inglehart RF (2012) Muslim integration into western cultures: Between origins and destinations. Political Studies 60(2): 228–251. Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Pollio HR, Henley HB and Thompson CJ (1997) The Phenomenology of Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Popovsky MA (2010) Special issues in the care of Ultra-Orthodox Jewish psychiatric inpatients. Transcultural Psychiatry 47: 647–672. Ridley CR, Mendoza DW, Kanitz BE, et al (1994) Cultural sensitivity in multicultural counseling: A perceptual schema model. Journal of Counseling Psychology 41(2): 125–136. Ringel S and Park J (2008) Intimate partner violence in the evangelical community: Faithbased interventions and implications for practice. Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought 27: 341–360. Shulman L (2006) The Skills of Helping Individuals, Families, Groups, and Communities, 5th ed. Australia: Thompson. Smith JA, Flowers P and Larkin M (2009) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. Los Angeles: Sage. Sokolowsky R (2000) Introduction to Phenomenology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Spinelli E (1989) The Interpreted World. London: Sage. Sue DW (2006) Multicultural Social Work Practice. Hoboken: Wiley. Tilley C (1994) Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, Monuments. Oxford/ Providence: BERG. Valle RS and King M (1978) An introduction to existential-phenomenological thought in psychology. In: Valle RS and King M (eds) Existential-Phenomenological Alternatives for Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–17. Witztum E and Goodman Y (1998) The expression of mental distress among ultra-orthodox Jewish: Narrative structuring and cultural-sensitive narrative intervention. Society and Welfare 18(1): 97–123. (in Hebrew).