Culture as deficit: a critical discourse analysis of the concept of culture in contemporary social work discourse

Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, Sept, 2005 by Yoosun Park

In inscribing and deploying "culture" as a discursive device marking out minority populations, the discourse simultaneously defines its opposite. If "culture" and its contents are understood to be socially constructed demarcators, then not only "cultured" minorities, but the "culture-free" majority must be understood as an inconstant identity which is constructed rather than found.

   Culture never stands alone but always participates in a conflictual
   economy acting out the tension between sameness and difference,
   comparison and differentiation, unity and diversity, cohesion and
   dispersion, containment and subversion. (Young, 1995, p. 53)

Despite its insistent rhetoric of cultural relativism or multiculturalism purporting the sensibility that cultures are different but equal, social work constructs and deploys the central concept of culture as a device marking simultaneously that which is on the inside of the margins, and that which is outside.

Culture Reified

As a measure for gauging difference from the norm, "culture" and cultural borders are assigned in social work discourse in reductionist terms that allow for enumeration and categorization. "Culture" and cultural attribute are presented as reified characteristics--fixed difference rather than positional divergence--which can be attributed to groups of people, who in turn can be identified by those essential attributes. Such essentialist definitions of culture are usually modified, appended often with caveats asserting that, in fact, "culture" is not static but ever changing, and additionally, that people, being individual, have differing levels of identification or ties to their cultures. These caveats, do not, however, substantively affect the functional conceptualization and deployment of "culture" in the discourse, since the idea of changeability and fluidity are assigned not to the category of "culture" itself, but the specifics of characteristic attributes. Remaining embedded within the caveat is the identification of a static core "culture" which can be modified and differentially adhered to, since variance must center around something, and modification presupposes a core entity which can be modified but remain discernible as itself.

   Writers who are attempting to generalize about ethnic cultures
   typically qualify their descriptions by pointing out that research
   is limited, that groups are heterogeneous, and that many conclusions
   are based on informal observations or clinical experience rather
   than on empirical[sic] data (e.g., Uba, 1994). Nevertheless, there
   appear to be core characteristics that many accounts agree on.
   (Phinney, 1996, p. 920)

Identification of such core cultural attributes abound in the reviewed literature. Lieberman (1990) writes about the difference between "the quintessentially American value of individualism" (p. 107) and the oft cited Hispanic value of collectivism. Referring to a study conducted to prove this idea, she reports that while "Anglos" were found to value "honesty, sincerity, and moderation" "Hispanics" were found to value "being sensitive to others, loyal, dutiful, and gracious" (p. 170). Woll (1996) advises that "writers such as Sue and Sue, Atkinson, Maryuma, and Matsui, and Bryson and Bardo have clearly articulated that ethnic minorities do not particularly value 'personal insight' or the ability to talk about the deepest and most intimate aspects of one's life" (p. 71). Mason et al. (1996) assert that "people of color are more likely to be in an extended family configuration," and that another example of the difference between people of color and the "dominant culture" is the "concept of time, which for many people of color is more past- or present-based as opposed to future-oriented for people of European descent" (p. 168).