International Social Work

[Link]

Universalism and cultural relativism in social work ethics

Lynne M. Healy
International Social Work 2007; 50; 11
DOI: 10.1177/0020872807071479

The online version of this article can be found at:

[Link]

Published by:

[Link]

On behalf of:

International Association of Schools of Social Work

International Council of Social Welfare

International Federation of Social Workers

Additional services and information for International Social Work can be found at:

Email Alerts: [Link]

Subscriptions: [Link]

Reprints: [Link]

Permissions: [Link]

Citations (this article cites 8 articles hosted on the

SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
[Link]
Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
International Social Work 50(1): 11–26

Sage Publications: London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi

*
i s w
DOI: 10.1177/0020872807071479

Universalism and cultural relativism in

social work ethics

* Lynne M. Healy

Social work values and ethics have often been held out as unifying
features of the profession. From a global or multicultural perspec-
tive, however, values and ethics may be more divisive than unifying.
This article will address two related questions: should ethical prin-
ciples in social work be universally applied, and, are the values
held out as cornerstones of social work ethics universally relevant?
The opposing philosophical perspectives of universalism and relati-
vism will provide the framework for this brief exploration of the
complexities of social work ethics. Following descriptions of the
ethical philosophies, the article will relate them to major concepts
in social work ethics, with emphasis on self-determination and equal-
ity and non-discrimination. Intersections of social work and human
rights practice will be considered, using the human rights of women
as an example. The article will then examine tools for ethical
decision-making, including national codes of ethics and the Inter-
national Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) ethical document,
concluding with recommendations for addressing the dilemma of
universalism and relativism.
The relevance of the universalism–relativism debate to social
work has grown with the increased globalization of the profession
and its practice context; it is applicable not only to cross-national
practice and cross-national efforts to define the profession, but
increasingly to social work within countries, as more and more
countries have become multicultural. Relevance is heightened by
social work’s growing involvement in the global human rights

Key words * cultural relativism * ethics * human rights * universalism

Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
12 International Social Work volume 50(1)

struggle; universalism and relativism are hotly contested in the field

of human rights, especially regarding the rights of oppressed and
excluded groups.

Universalism and relativism defined

Competing schools of thought in ethics differ in the extent to which
ethical rules are viewed as fixed or contextual. The deontological
school of ethics ‘stresses the overriding importance of fixed moral
rules’, arguing that ‘an action is inherently right or wrong’ and there-
fore that ethical rules are universal (Dolgoff et al., 2005: 43). The
teleological school holds that ethical principles are contingent on
context; ethical decisions may vary ‘on the basis of the context in
which they are made or on the basis of the consequences that
result’ (Dolgoff et al., 2005: 42).
These points of view are at the heart of debates in the arena of
human rights, where they are often labeled the universalist and
cultural relativist positions. The universalist view is that ‘all
members of the human family share the same inalienable rights’
(Mayer, 1995: 176) and that ‘culture is irrelevant to the validity of
moral rights and rules’ (Donnelly, 1984: 400). As explained by
Donnelly, not himself a relativist, the extreme cultural relativist
argument is that ‘culture is the sole source of the validity of a
moral right or rule’ and that there are no common standards, only
culturally specific ones (1984: 400). Between these extremes are
mixed positions, ranging from moderately universalist to moder-
ately relativist (Figure 1). Thus, belief that a set of universal rights
or values exists can co-exist with varying degrees of consideration
for the importance and relevance of culture and cultural traditions.

Universalist















! Relativist

!
!

Moderate mid-range positions

> <
. ............................................................................................................................ .
Culture/context Culture/context Culture/context Culture/context
irrelevant acknowledged or weighted or determines
considered emphasized

Figure 1 The universalist/cultural relativist continuum for ethical

decision-making

Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 Healy: Universalism and cultural relativism 13

The 1994 IFSW Code of Ethics identified with this middle ground
when it recommended the adaptation of ethical principles, stating:
the first purpose of the IFSW Declaration of Ethical Principles is
‘to formulate a set of basic principles for social work, which can
be adapted to cultural and social settings’ (1994: 2.1). Are practi-
tioners left to decide when and how to adapt ethical principles?
On what basis should they make these decisions? Social workers in
everyday practice encounter different cultures with values that con-
flict with their own and must struggle with the practical question:
‘when is different just different and when is different wrong?’
(Donaldson, 1996: 48). These dilemmas arise frequently in social
work, especially in situations regarding equality claims for women;
children; ethnic, religious and sexual minorities; or involving ten-
sions over individualism against the claims of the group or commu-
nity (also known as communalism). They also raise issues about the
role of social workers in advocating for cultural change, although
the ‘Global Definition of Social Work’ (IFSW/IASSW, 2000)
begins: ‘The social work profession promotes social change.’
The universalist or deontologist position would argue that social
work has a universally applicable set of values (which may or may
not be those reflected in the current international ethics document).
Those with a strong commitment to the relativist or teleologist point
of view would be likely to discourage efforts to refine a single global
code of ethics.

Human rights debates and conflicting philosophies

Human rights discourse is relevant to this debate, as social work has
increasingly identified itself with human rights. In a 1994 publi-
cation, IFSW and IASSW declared that ‘human rights are insepar-
able from social work theory, values and ethics, and practice’ (UN,
1994: 5). In this training manual1 social workers are told that they
must advocate for human rights, even in authoritarian countries
where it is dangerous to do so.
Actors in the international human rights arena struggle with the
extent to which individual human rights supersede claims of cultural
or national sovereignty. Human rights are delineated in a set of
widely ratified United Nations documents. The Universal Declara-
tion of Human Rights adopted in 1948 provides a foundation that
has been further elaborated in the Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, adopted in 1966. Rights of racial groups, women
and children were expanded and detailed successively in other new

Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
14 International Social Work volume 50(1)

Conventions.2 The nature of rights is hotly contested; the official

positions taken by the United States government, for example, sug-
gest rejection of the notion of social rights and an extremely limited
view of economic rights (as the USA has ratified only the Civil and
Political Rights Covenant and the treaty on racial discrimination).
These macro issues and policy positions shape the structure of
social services and benefits in societies. However, the roles and
status of women and children in families, communities and cultures
are probably the most frequent sources of value clashes over social
work ethics and human rights between individual rights and cultural
traditions.

The example of Convention on the Elimination of all forms of

Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
Perhaps no issue has been more contentious than the rights of
women. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discri-
mination Against Women (CEDAW) has been ratified by 175 coun-
tries and signed by one more, the USA (UNDP, 2004). This does not
indicate widespread agreement that women should have equal
rights. CEDAW has had more reservations entered by ratifying
countries than any other human rights treaty. Many of these contra-
dict the core provisions and protections of the convention. For
example, 24 nations have filed reservations indicating disagreement
with Article 16, which guarantees equality between women and men
in marriage and family life. As expressed in a UNICEF report, ‘such
reservations strike at the heart of CEDAW’ and indicate ‘wide-
spread and deep-rooted resistance to the concept of full equality
for women’ (1997: 49). The UN has tolerated an uneasy situation
in which countries are considered parties to a convention, normally
meaning that they agree to be governed by its provisions, ‘whose
substantive provisions they had professed their unwillingness to
abide by’ (Mayer, 1995: 179).
Social work practice intersects with CEDAW in a number of
ways. Practitioners encounter the clash between cultural tradition
and women’s rights in cases such as:

. providing counseling, support and alternatives to victims of

domestic violence;
. introducing family planning practices or counseling women on
reproductive options;
. poverty alleviation efforts that involve micro-enterprise projects
for women to increase economic independence;

Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 Healy: Universalism and cultural relativism 15

. efforts to introduce change in female circumcision practice (also

labeled female genital mutilation).

In such cases, as social workers struggle to practice ethically, they

need to contend with the tensions between individual rights and cul-
tural sovereignty, between equality and non-discrimination and the
continuation of cultural practices many would label harmful. When
is it appropriate to advocate for cultural change and/or to promote
change within the social work relationship? There is no ambiguity in
CEDAW; the treaty specifically calls for cultural change in situa-
tions of discrimination or stereotypical treatment. Article 5 states
that ratifying countries should take measures to ‘modify the social
and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women with a view
to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and
other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or
the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for
men and women’ (UN, 1979). The IFSW/IASSW Ethics in Social
Work, Statement of Principles (2004) binds social workers to this
and other provisions of CEDAW when it cites the ‘Global Defini-
tion of Social Work’ statement that ‘principles of human rights
and social justice are fundamental to social work’ and lists
CEDAW among the ‘documents particularly relevant to social
work practice and action’ (2004: 3). Thus, it can be argued that
social work is obligated to advocate for cultural change when
equal rights are in jeopardy. This position is compatible with
social work commitment to equality and non-discrimination, as
will be discussed below.
The strongest voices of opposition to CEDAW have come from
the Middle East and Africa. The Africentric scholar Josiah
Cobbah objects to what he labels the individualistic bias of the
human rights treaties. He states that the Universal Declaration is
‘a product of Western liberal ideology’, and points out that it was
adopted during the late 1940s when most of Africa was still under
colonial rule (Cobbah, 1987: 316). Fearing the type of cultural
change that CEDAW so obviously promotes, Cobbah worries that
human rights may be a Trojan horse sent in to change African
civilizations. As Mutua (2000) says, the African Charter on
Human Rights urges states to ‘eliminate every discrimination
against women’ (p. 10) but also refers to duties to ‘preserve the har-
monious development of the family’ and to uphold traditional
values (p. 8). African scholars differ in their analysis of the extent

Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
16 International Social Work volume 50(1)

to which the charter supports or challenges the continued oppression

of women (Mutua, 2000; Oloko-Onyango, 2000).
What, then, would Cobbah and others skeptical or hostile to uni-
versalism recommend to deal with the oppression of women? The
answer would likely be formulated from a communalist perspective,
and would interweave the values of communalism: hierarchy, respect,
restraint, responsibility and reciprocity, and ‘groupness, sameness
and commonality’ rather than individual freedoms (1987: 320).
Some of these would be readily accepted by social work – responsi-
bility and reciprocity, for example. Others, such as hierarchy and
restraint in pursuing one’s rights, are more problematic and com-
plex. This discussion will continue in the context of several hallmark
social work values.

Social work values and the universal–relativist debate

Without debating universality at this point, there are some social
work values that are common to the international ethical document,
Ethics in Social Work, Statement of Principles, and to codes of ethics
from individual countries. These are loosely identified as corner-
stone values of the profession. They include belief in the worth
and dignity of each person; commitment to non-discrimination
and equality; acceptance of the rights of persons to self-
determination and to confidentiality in their dealings with social
workers; and recognition that social workers have multiple ethical
responsibilities to those served, to the profession, to employing insti-
tutions, to fellow professionals and to society at large. An additional
ethical principle, not universally stated but generally viewed as
important, is the avoidance of doing harm through professional
actions. These will be briefly examined in the context of universalism
and relativism, with emphasis on equality or non-discrimination and
self-determination.

Equality and non-discrimination

Equality and non-discrimination are values most related to the
discussion of CEDAW and other guarantees of human rights for
special populations. Social work codes of ethics support the prin-
ciple of equality and non-discrimination, perhaps underestimating
the complexities of the concepts.3 The US National Association of
Social Workers Code contains very strong standards in this area,
stating clearly that: ‘Social workers should not practice, condone,
facilitate or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the

Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 Healy: Universalism and cultural relativism 17

basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orien-

tation, age, marital status, political belief, religion or mental or
physical disability’ (1996: 4.02). In addition, there are at least two
relevant statements of social workers’ societal-level responsibilities
for equality. First, ‘Social workers should act to prevent and elimi-
nate domination of, exploitation of, and discrimination against any
person, group or class on the basis of race, ethnicity, national
origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, political
belief, religion or mental or physical disability’ (1996: 6.04d). The
second statement is a more complex statement on cultural diversity
that requires social workers to respect culture while safeguarding
social justice:

Social workers should promote conditions that encourage respect for cultural and
social diversity within the United States and globally. Social workers should pro-
mote policies and practices that demonstrate respect for difference, support the
expansion of cultural knowledge and resources, advocate for programs and insti-
tutions that demonstrate cultural competence, and promote policies that safe-
guard the rights of and confirm equity and social justice for all people. (1996:
6.04c)

These principles are also reflected in the IFSW/IASSW document

when it requires social workers to ‘challenge negative discrimination
on the basis of characteristics such as ability, age, culture, gender or
sex, marital status, socio-economic status, political opinions, skin
colour or other physical characteristics, sexual orientation, or spiri-
tual beliefs’ (2004: 4.2.1). The Indian Declaration of Ethics also
seems to emphasize the profession’s special obligations to serve
and advocate for oppressed groups, declaring that social work is
‘committed to solidarity with the marginalised peoples’ (Declaration
of Ethics, 1997: 336). Thus, the recognition of obligations to pro-
mote equality and oppose discrimination is widespread in social
work ethical codes.
These principles bring social work into conflict within and
between societies, as many cultures promote discrimination on one
or more of the named grounds. The reservations entered by
CEDAW ratifiers demonstrate this conflict on the basis of gender.
Extending equal rights on the basis of sexual orientation may be
even more conflictual, but is less frequently discussed. Members of
the government of Zimbabwe have openly encouraged harsh dis-
crimination against homosexuals; a politician from the Caribbean
blasted the Council of Europe for its pressure on Caribbean coun-
tries to liberalize laws on homosexuality, charging the European

Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
18 International Social Work volume 50(1)

nations with ‘human-rights imperialism’ (Jessop, 1998); studies con-

ducted in Jamaica show ‘very strong and deep-rooted local, religious
and other socio-cultural prejudices’ against homosexuals (Carr,
2003: 76); and the US Supreme Court has upheld the right of the
Boy Scouts organization to exclude gay men from scouting. All
codes of ethics reviewed put the profession at odds with these
national policies and sentiments. The Canadian Code of Ethics
specifically informs social workers that their ethical responsibilities
exceed their Canadian legal responsibilities in promoting non-
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Canadian Associa-
tion of Social Workers, 1994). These principles reflect a universalism
in formal ethical statements in respect to equality and non-
discrimination.

Self-determination
In social work practice, self-determination means respecting and
facilitating the ability of the client to make his or her own life choices
and decisions. In many ways, this is the practice extension of the
basic value of respect for the worth and dignity of each person.
The ethic of self-determination is widely accepted in social work at
the most fundamental level as preventing social workers from dictat-
ing life choices for those they serve. However, self-determination can
also be seen as based in individualistic societies’ valuation of self-
determination as essential for adult functioning and the encourage-
ment of independence rather than group interdependence. This
value is particularly strong in the USA, the most individualistic
culture in the world, according to Hofstede’s (1980) study of
world cultures.
In work with individuals, social workers in various cultures
modify or reject aspects of self-determination through actions
ranging from the acceptance of more directive forms of counseling,
the assumption of responsibility to act for the client, to avoiding
offering options for individual choice. Lane reported that in
Denmark, social workers’ adherence to ‘the ideals of the indivi-
dual’s rights to self-determination, self-empowerment and self-
actualization are not as strong’ as in the USA (Lane, 1998: 10). For
example, it is fairly common for public welfare benefits to be directly
paid to vendors, such as landlords and utility companies, on behalf
of clients who have difficulty managing their money, a practice
frowned upon by civil liberties advocates in the USA. A social
worker from Jamaica reported that while self-determination is

Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 Healy: Universalism and cultural relativism 19

held out as an ideal, most social workers engage in considerable

amounts of advice-giving in practice and tend to be directive
(Maxwell, personal communication, April, 1997). This is attributed
to culturally based expectations based on social stratification and
traditional authority relationships. Similarly, in her study of case-
work in India, Ejaz (1989) found that while voicing support for an
ideal of self-determination, social workers tended to be directive
and prescriptive in response to clients’ expectations that the experts
would tell them how to resolve their problems.
Social workers in societies that are more strongly collectivist
contest the very concept of self-determination. Silvawe stated that
self-determination is an inappropriate concept for use in addressing
individual problems in Africa ‘because it assumes concepts of indivi-
duality which are not applicable in an African culture or society’
(1995: 71). He recommends a value of group determination rather
than self-determination.

African society is characterized by the prevalence of the idea of communalism or

community. The individual recedes before the group. The whole of existence from
birth to death is organically embodied in a series of associations, and life appears
to have its full value only in these close ties. Individual initiative is discouraged . . .
Self initiative or self-determination in resolving personal problems is collectively
sanctioned by the community. (Silvawe, 1995: 72–3)

The 1994 IFSW Code of Ethics/Statement of Principles assumed a

moderately relativist stance on self-determination and indeed, the
term was not used in the document. The Statement of Principles
established the right to self-fulfillment of individuals ‘to the extent
that it does not encroach upon the same right of others’, while
also assigning to individuals the ‘obligation to contribute to the
well-being of society’ (2.2.2), suggesting duties. The 1994 document
continued: ‘social workers help the client – individual, group, com-
munity or society – to achieve self-fulfillment and maximum poten-
tial within the limits of the respective rights of others’ (3.3.4). Thus,
the right to self-fulfillment was recognized, but tempered by
concerns about the well-being of society. It is interesting that the
replacement global ethical document adopted in 2004 does include
the word self-determination as a social work value. How are the
interests of individual and society to be balanced in practice? This
and the application of the other key principles will be examined
through presentation of a case.

Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
20 International Social Work volume 50(1)

Illustrative case: domestic violence and culture conflict

A Vietnamese woman, a refugee, came to the local welfare agency in
the North American community in which she had settled. She was
originally referred to the agency for being in non-compliance with
welfare work requirements; Mrs Nguyen had not responded to
notices from the welfare office nor had she attended training sessions
required to maintain her benefits. In an interview with the welfare
office family caseworker, Mrs Nguyen revealed that her husband
had been keeping her a virtual prisoner in their apartment. In addi-
tion, she had been frequently beaten and verbally abused. She told
the worker she could not comply with the welfare department
orders, as she was not allowed to leave home. The intake worker
referred Mrs Nguyen to the local shelter for battered women and
warned her that staying with her husband under these conditions
was likely to mean the cut-off of all welfare support to her and
her children. It could even result in the children being removed
from the home, if they were left without sufficient support. As
events unfolded, Mrs Nguyen decided to go to the shelter and
made arrangements for her two children to be collected from
school and taken to the shelter with her. Upon learning what had
happened, Mrs Nguyen’s husband was furious. He engaged the
help of the local Vietnamese Mutual Assistance Association and
together they accused the welfare agency and the shelter of destroy-
ing Vietnamese families in violation of cultural principles (adapted
from a case provided by V. Shelto, personal interview, 2000).
Were the actions of the welfare office caseworker ethical? Were
they in the best interests of the client? Did they give due considera-
tion to culture and the preservation of cultural integrity?
Taking the universalist position, the social worker would argue
that the woman herself decided to go to the shelter and that her
right to self-determination would prevail. Drawing from CEDAW,
Article 16, women have a right to equality in marriage and family
life, a right that was certainly being violated in this case. Therefore,
the social worker was also upholding the value of equality and non-
discrimination by taking steps to remove the woman from a marital
situation that was oppressive and by protecting her human right not
to be abused.
The relativist would at least be less certain of the appropriateness
of the action. Was the worker in fact guilty of subtle coercion in
telling the woman that she would lose her benefits – even if it was
a fact? Although fully informing clients is also an ethical principle,

Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 Healy: Universalism and cultural relativism 21

information can be delivered in such a way as to be perceived as a

threat. Did this diminish the free exercise of self-determination in
the case? Was the social worker operating out of a Western bias of
individualism that places a high value on adult independence
rather than interdependence? How would intervention have differed
if the worker believed that ‘the individual recedes before the group’,
as expressed by Silvawe (1995)? The relativist might also have
looked for ways to balance competing claims in this case. Rather
than quickly refer to shelter services, the relativist social worker
might have taken more time to examine alternatives with the
woman, including efforts to modify the husband’s behavior while
maintaining the marital unit, perhaps through involving respected
elders in the immigrant community. This strategy, however, might
have necessitated a stretch of professional interpretations of confi-
dentiality by sharing family information with others.

The concept of harm

In addition to values of self-determination and equality or non-
discrimination, the concept of harm is relevant to this and many
other cases of cultural conflict. It is widely agreed that professionals
should take no action that causes harm to the client and should
strive to reduce harm to as many parties to a situation as possible.
Since all have a right to freedom from harm, an obvious interpreta-
tion is that the action was to protect the client and her children from
harm – the physical and emotional harm of abuse. The pursuit of
alternative strategies, such as efforts to modify the husband’s beha-
vior, might have resulted in increased violence and physical harm to
the woman. Harm is not always simple to assess, however, especially
in the context of social work’s multiple responsibilities to client, rele-
vant others, agency and society. Did the action of admitting the
woman to the shelter protect her from harm, or merely substitute
one form of harm for another? If, as Silvawe argued, ‘The whole
of existence from birth to death is organically embodied in a series
of associations and life appears to have its full value only in these
close ties’ (1995: 72–3), will her estrangement from her husband
and community create another significant harm? The social
worker must also assess harm to the refugee community in circum-
venting its associations and problem-solving mechanisms. As the
following discussion of tools for ethical decision-making will show,
there are no easy answers to these complex dilemmas.

Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
22 International Social Work volume 50(1)

Applying tools for ethical decision-making

Codes of ethics delineate important principles for social work prac-
tice. In many cases, however, multiple principles are involved and in
conflict. When only some values can be optimized, social workers
face particularly difficult decisions.
Dolgoff et al. (2005) suggest using an ‘ethical principles screen’ in
which ethical principles are arranged in a hierarchy. They include
seven principles in their screen or ladder, with the protection of
life at the top. Thus, social work action should protect life as a
first consideration, even when this requires violating other ethical
principles, such as self-determination and confidentiality. The other
six principles, in order of priority consideration, are: equality and
inequality; autonomy and freedom (including self-determination);
least harm; quality of life; privacy and confidentiality; and truthful-
ness and full disclosure (2005: 65).
If the screen is applied to the case described above, many of the
principles apply. If the woman’s life is assessed to be in danger,
the social worker would be obligated to take strong measures to
encourage her to leave home. If this is not the case, the principle
of equality/inequality specifies that the interests of the party with
less power in the situation take precedence, especially if that party
is being oppressed. Again, this would appear to justify giving prior-
ity to the interests of the woman, not her husband or wider commu-
nity. However, a macro view would include an assessment that the
Vietnamese refugee community is also in an unequal position and
suffers oppression and racism from its minority status. The analysis
could continue through the list of ethical principles, demonstrating
that autonomy and freedom requires deference to the woman’s
wishes (unless her life is in danger); least harm, as discussed above,
requires the assessment of many dimensions of physical, emotional
and relationship harm; quality of life is involved and difficult to
assess in its longer-term aspects. Confidentiality may be an element
in the case, especially if the worker believed the client’s life to be in
danger and felt obligated to notify authorities without her consent.
Finally, full disclosure, while desirable, could be problematic; dis-
closure of regulations about welfare payments so early in the
relationship might have interfered with the autonomy rights of
the client, making it impossible for her to truly exercise self-
determination. Utilizing the ethical principles screen to balance the
complexities of the example case, the social worker would probably
feel reassured with the ethics of the decision to refer to the shelter.

Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 Healy: Universalism and cultural relativism 23

The screen, however, represents the value judgements of its

authors. While the authors are well-informed scholars of ethics, the
judgements are nonetheless just that and appear oriented towards
individualistic values. The relativist would quickly see that cultural
integrity is not included in the hierarchy of values and communalist
perspectives are lacking. Thus, the screen is of little help in deciding
when cultural change should be advocated or when a client should
be supported or encouraged to ‘recede before the group’ (Silvawe,
1995: 72).

Analysis and conclusion

Hopefully, this beginning effort to explore ethics in the context of
culture has demonstrated that the field of ethical decision-making
is highly complex in multicultural contexts. Considerations of the
extent to which social work values should be applied universally
or relatively are particularly challenging. Current tools for analysis
and decision-making are limited in helping social workers decide,
to paraphrase Donaldson, when different is ‘just different’ and
when different is wrong (1996: 48).

Universalist or relativist?
Social workers may find both the relativist and universalist positions
attractive for different reasons. As noted above, codes of ethics from
diverse countries show considerable agreement about fundamental
social work values, suggesting some level of universalism. As under-
scored in the recent publication Standards for Cultural Competence
in Social Work Practice, social work also places considerable impor-
tance on valuing cultural diversity (NASW, 2001). Social workers
are attracted to respect for culture as both a moral position and as
an element of practice effectiveness. Some in the profession have
therefore advocated non-interference with cultural practices such
as female circumcision, corporal punishment of children, bride
price and dowry. This degree of cultural relativism should be
adopted only with considerable caution. The ethical dangers in view-
ing culture as sacrosanct are serious and include trampling on the
rights of those who may wish their rights respected; according
fewer rights for some than for others; and not paying attention to
the concept of harm in all its complexities.
While the relativist position appears flexible, it is often applied
with rigidity. Those who argue the extreme relativist perspective
view values as fixed, and ignore the evolutionary nature of cultural

Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
24 International Social Work volume 50(1)

values. Mayer notes that the critique of feminism as a Western value,

alien to other cultures, ignores the fact that until very recently, fem-
inism was also alien to Western cultures and gained acceptance only
after lengthy and contested efforts towards culture change (1995).
Cultures are dynamic and can be defined as ‘a series of constantly
contested and negotiated social practices whose meanings are influ-
enced by the power and status of their interpreters and participants’
(Rao, 1995: 173).

Recommendations
Given social work’s strong affiliation with human rights, a stance in
the mid-range of the universalist–relativism continuum is recom-
mended for the profession’s ethics, with a preference towards
moderate universalism. Such a stance would recognize that all
humans have rights to equality and to the full range of protections,
entitlements and responsibilities embodied in the UN human rights
treaties. The importance of diverse cultures and of ties to cultural
groups would be recognized as among the human rights. Thus,
specific practice decisions would promote universal rights while
supporting the preservation of culture whenever possible.
In stating this, it must be recognized that existing social work
codes of ethics and ethical screens fail to explicate the communalist
perspective and are fairly heavily biased towards the individualistic
cultural perspective. Individualism, especially in its rugged and com-
petitive forms, diminishes the importance of caring, reciprocity,
community-building, generosity and cooperation. These are impor-
tant values that need to be captured in social work ethics. Additional
work is needed on international ethical principles to explore ways in
which positive communalist values can be accommodated within a
human rights framework. The cultural specificity of the ethical
principles screen (Dolgoff et al., 2005) suggests that national social
work associations may wish to consider developing particularized
screens, prioritizing the universal values in a more culturally relevant
hierarchy.
Individual social workers may find that their positions on the con-
tinuum are not static but move along the mid-ranges depending
upon the particular situation. Finally, social workers who fear the
Trojan horse of human rights and universal social work values
might consider the words of the Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin
Ebadi of Iran. As she wrote in a brief essay, ‘cultural relativity
should never be used as a pretext to violate human rights’ (UNDP,
2004: 23).

Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 Healy: Universalism and cultural relativism 25

Notes
1. The training manual was the result of collaboration between IASSW, IFSW and
the UN Centre for Human Rights.
2. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimina-
tion (1969); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW) (1979) and the Convention on the Rights of the
Child (1989).
3. Equality, equity and non-discrimination are complex concepts and a full discussion
of them is not possible within the confines of this article. Some social work codes,
such as the IFSW/IASSW statement, distinguish positive from negative discrimi-
nation, recognizing that positive discrimination may be necessary to achieve
equity; others, such as the NASW/US code, refer more broadly to discrimination.

References
Canadian Association of Social Workers (1994) Social Work Code of Ethics. Ottawa,
Ontario: author.
Carr, R. (2003) ‘On ‘‘Judgements’’: Poverty, Sexually-based Violence and Human
Rights in 21st Century Jamaica’, Caribbean Journal of Social Work 2: 71–87.
Cobbah, J.A.M. (1987) ‘African Values and the Human Rights Debate: An African
Perspective’, Human Rights Quarterly 9: 309–31.
‘Declaration of Ethics for Professional Social Work’ (1997) The Indian Journal of
Social Work 58(2): 335–41.
Dolgoff, R., F.M. Loewenberg and D. Harrington (2005) Ethical Decisions for Social
Work Practice. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Donaldson, T. (1996) ‘Values in Tension: Ethics Away from Home’, Harvard Business
Review 74(5): 48–62.
Donnelly, J. (1984) ‘Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights’, Human
Rights Quarterly 6 (November): 400–19.
Ejaz, F.K. (1989) ‘The Nature of Casework Practice in India: A Study of Social
Workers’ Perceptions in Bombay’, International Social Work 33: 25–38.
Hofstede, G. (1980) ‘Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: Do American
Theories Apply Abroad?’, Organizational Dynamics 9(1): 42–63.
International Federation of Social Workers (1994) International Code of Ethics for the
Professional Social Worker. Oslo, Norway: author.
International Federation of Social Workers, International Association of Schools of
Social Work (2000) ‘Global Definition of Social Work’. Available online at:
[Link] or [Link]
International Federation of Social Workers, International Association of Schools of
Social Work (2004) ‘Ethics in Social Work, Statement of Principles’. Adopted
October, Adelaide, Australia. Available online at: [Link] or www.
[Link]
Jessop, D. (1998) ‘Caribbean Norms vs. European Ethics’, The Sunday Observer
(Jamaica) (1 February): 13.
Lane, T.S. (1998) ‘Social Work Values and Ethics from an International Perspective’,
paper presented at the Annual Program Meeting, Council on Social Work Educa-
tion, Orlando, Florida (March).

Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
26 International Social Work volume 50(1)

Mayer, A.E. (1995) ‘Cultural Particularism as a Bar to Women’s Rights: Reflections

on the Middle Eastern Experience’, in J. Peters and A. Wolper (eds) Women’s
Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Mutua, M. (2000) ‘The African Human Rights System: A Critical Evaluation’,
Human Development Report 2000, background paper. New York: United Nations
Development Programme. Available online at: [Link] (accessed 2 June
2006).
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) (1996) Code of Ethics. Washington,
DC: author.
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) (2001) NASW Standards for
Cultural Competence in Social Work Practice. Washington, DC: author.
Oloka-Onyango, J. (2000) ‘Human Rights and Sustainable Development in Contem-
porary Africa: A New Dawn, or Retreating Horizons?’, Human Development
Report 2000, background paper. New York: United Nations Development
Programme. Available online at: [Link] (accessed 30 May 2006).
Rao, A. (1995) ‘The Politics of Gender and Culture in International Human Rights
Discourse’, in J. Peters and A. Wolper (eds) Women’s Rights, Human Rights: Inter-
national Feminist Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Silvawe, G.W. (1995) ‘The Need for a New Social Work Perspective in an African
Setting: The Case of Social Casework in Zambia’, British Journal of Social Work
25: 71–84.
United Nations (UN) (1979) ‘Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discri-
mination Against Women’. Adopted 18 December 1979 by the General Assembly.
Available online at: [Link] (accessed 14 September 2005).
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 (with IFSW and
IASSW).
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (1997) The Progress of Nations 1997.
New York: UNICEF, Division of Communications.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2004) Human Development
Report 2004: Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.

Lynne M. Healy is Professor and Director, Center for International Social Work
Studies, at the University of Connecticut School of Social Work, 1798 Asylum
Avenue, West Hartford, CT 06117, USA. [email: [Link]@[Link]]

Downloaded from [Link] at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on May 3, 2008
© 2007 IASSW, ICSW, IFSW. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.