A social worker teaches aging community members how to use smart phones at Changxing County, Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province, on Oct. 24. Photo: CNSphoto

---

The transformation of community governance and cultural environments in China changes community social work. Traditional administrative social work is complex in communities, but it receives limited recognition among residents. Therefore, when community social workers carry out their duties, we propose that they first establish a professional relationship with residents, to build trust with people in the community.

Professional relationship

How is trust built? There are two main ways for individuals to integrate into a group. One is the “relational” path and the other is the “categorical” path. The former builds relationships through interaction and the latter gains trust through identity. Chinese culture values “guanxi” or “relationships,” which often follows a “differential pattern” which demarcates different levels of trust. Trust established through “categorical” paths are mainly institutional and can transform into “relational” trust in specific interpersonal scenes. At present, social workers are largely unknown and unfamiliar to the vast majority of the public in China and do not have the same institutionally strong identity as policemen, lawyers, and other professions. In other words, social workers cannot rely on a “categorical” path to build trust. From the perspective of local culture, the “relational” path is the more effective one for building interpersonal trust in Chinese society.

The professional relationships between social workers and clients are dynamic in nature, involving frequent interactions. The majority of interactions take place between professional social workers and those in need of their services. Further, relationships remain professional, as opposed to those in daily life. Recently, social work has begun transitioning from a “problem-oriented perspective” to an “advantage-oriented perspective,” meaning the establishment of relationships no longer emphasizes the interaction of “healers” and “people with problems.” 

However, it must be noted that dual or multiple relationships that extend beyond professional relationships based on identity and institutions are considered inappropriate. When there is more than one relationship, whether social or in business, between a social worker and a client, dual/multiple relationships occur. These may include financial transactions and loans, tending to clients’ personal emotional needs, and informal social interactions such as giving or exchanging gifts. 

Research results from Western countries have found that dual/multiple relationships are more harmful than beneficial. Most studies advise that social workers adhere to professional values and ethics to provide maximum benefit and avoid exploitation and potential harm to clients. This also serves to promote the development of specialization and professionalism of social work.

In recent years, some Western scholars have begun questioning the “one-size-fits-all” ban on dual/multiple relationships. They argue that dual/multiple relationships are inevitable in real service scenarios because the problems encountered by social service recipients are so diverse that the traditional limited professional relationship cannot solve them all. For example, some psychological problems can be effectively resolved by simulating the re-establishment of appropriate “attachment relationships” or by spending substantial personal time with clients, beyond the boundaries of professional relationships. Therefore, a growing number of scholars argue that while going beyond the boundaries of professional relationships may be harmful or exploitative, it might also be constructive. After all, establishing a professional relationship is a means for achieving the goal of helping others—rather than the goal itself. Too much emphasis on strict professional relationships may maintain distance and not gain clients’ genuine trust.

Chinese model of trust

If we take cultural differences into account, how much does the limited “professional relationship” as defined by the West apply to China? Traditional Chinese culture has long accumulated several cultural factors, such as human relations, guanxi, “face,” and moral customs, which are completely different from the West. When practicing indigenous social work, these differences need to be fully addressed. In Chinese society, the “differential pattern” and the “relational” path of trust building play a major role. Therefore, it is difficult for social workers to draw boundaries between professional relationships and interpersonal relationships when interacting with clients. In such cultural settings, personal feelings and dual/multiple relationships within community work are unavoidable. Before the establishment of institutional trust, social workers should fully consider the trust model and cultural particularity of Chinese society.

A high degree of cultural sensitivity is an important aspect of professional social work. While serving communities, social workers should assist the clients to analyze the problems they are facing and find solutions within the context of their culture. Appropriate localization of social work must adapt to traditional social culture and require social workers to hold a reflective attitude. This adaptability to local cultures and the ethics of social work is precisely the embodiment of cultural sensitivity. In other words, social workers need to find compatibility between social work ethics and traditional Chinese culture.

From the perspective of ethics, two development orientations present themselves:  professional ethical absolutism and professional ethical relativism. Professional ethical absolutism holds that a professional must adhere to fixed moral laws and ethical values, and tries to understand and explain the nature and development of moral ethics from an absolutist viewpoint. However, in the face of constant social change and cultural diversity and integration, professional ethical relativism better aligns with the trend of the diversified development of specialties or professions to some extent. 

As British philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer argues, evolution equals progress in the moral sense of the word, and anything which supports evolutionary forces would therefore be good. If evolution advances moral good, we should support it out of human self-interest. Moral good was previously identified by Spencer as universal human pleasure and happiness. If the evolutionary process directs us towards this universal pleasure, we have an egoistic reason for being moral, namely, that we want universal happiness. In contrast, Spencer believes, “all evil results from the non-adaptation of constitution to conditions.” 

Professional ethical relativism decides whether ethics are reasonable based on specific backgrounds or consequences, and fully considers the social and cultural environments of different countries and regions. In practice, social workers who follow professional ethical relativism will judge whether they need to adjust or adapt to their clients’ ethical standards, rather than blindly follow a fixed ethical code. As a result, from the perspective of professional ethical relativism, the emergence of dual/multiple relationships does not mean the failure of professional relationships but may offer an opportunity for positive outcomes.

Finally, in the theoretical paradigm of professional social work relationships, compared with humanism, the dynamic school, functional school, and others, a problem-oriented approach is more suitable for the development of Chinese social work. Thus, the emphasis is on solving problems and achieving results, which was also China’s original intention when vigorously developing social work. Under such a mindset, a professional relationship is established based on trust and care between the client and the social worker. As long as they help accomplish tasks, dual/multiple relationships are not excluded. Social work focusing on problem solving believes that a “relationship” is essential to helping others, and a “meaningful relationship” is the key in the process of helping others. Only through a meaningful relationship can problems be solved, and social work be effective. However, it must be pointed out that this does not question or deny the Western professional relationship, but places the professional relationship in a Chinese context, and finally constructs a locally oriented professional relationship in social work.

Chinese social work culture

It is easy to imagine how dual or multiple relationships cannot be avoided in social work within the cultural context of China’s differential relationship pattern. For community work, professional relationships must be established on the basis of strong social relationships. The trust model based on professional relationships thus needs to integrate the values of social work with Chinese cultural traditions, namely the trinity structure of Chinese social relationships—interpersonal relations (renqing), familial relations (renlun), and popularity (renyuan). 

From the experience of social work development in China’s Hong Kong and Taiwan, it can be seen that the traditional value systems and ethics of the Chinese people are not in complete opposition to those of the Western society. Constructive dialogue can be conducted between the two to continuously enhance the local adaptability of social work in China, so as to construct the professional culture of social work suitable for China’s specific national conditions and cultural norms.

Community is the most basic unit of Chinese society, and China is also the field with the strongest and deepest ethnic and national culture. It is necessary for social workers to establish a bond with local communities based on the relationship structures of Chinese society and its differential pattern. This relationship may not necessarily stem from a traditional Western professional relationship but should be a localized pluralistic relationship based on the recognized professional relationship but including interpersonal trust, close neighborhood relationships, individual identity in the group, and institutional trust in a government employee. More often than not, social workers in China help clients deal with problems by building relationships that go beyond the limits of professional relationships and dynamically balance multiple-source interactions. On the basis of giving priority to the interests of the service recipients, social workers should be more aware of cultural sensitivity in professional relationships and actively adapt to the local social culture. 

In addition, community social workers should not settle for building professional relationships with one or two individuals, but with community residents who tap into a common field of lifestyles, habits, customs, and psychological identity. Borrowing the theory of stratification from social psychology, the former is a relationship between individuals and the latter is a relationship between individuals and groups. One does not compare to the other’s level of access. Previous studies on the professional nature of social work relationships mainly focus on the relationships between social workers and individual service recipients, but these studies lack relevant theoretical and practical discussions on how to establish relationships with communities as a whole. Moreover, due to cultural differences, study of the general public in China and in the West are very different due to culture, motivation, power structures, and operation modes. Therefore, it is crucial to construct a local community work professional relationship model based on Chinese practices and cultural norms.

Yang Xi and Liang Yanan are from the School of Politics and Public Administration at Zhengzhou University. 

Edited by YANG XUE