Cultural differences and different views of child-rearing

Culture and cultural differences play a central role in working with immigrants. Culture can refer to everyday practices as well as values and norms. Defined in this way, cul-ture can be seen as defining our daily lives and the way we perceive the world. (Huttu-nen et al. 2005, 26.) Culturally based so-called self-evident truths may be questioned, and culture may become visible, for example in encounters with people from different cultures (Draguns 1989, 3). The workers who responded to the questionnaire percei-ved cultural differences as one of the greatest challenges to cooperation, and they emphasized knowledge of the culture as a factor affecting success in cooperation:

(8) Sometimes there are extensive cultural differences (W3).

(9) Knowledge of the culture is necessary (W5).

Although there are differences in the views of people who have grown in different cultural environments, it is problematic to explain social phenomena through cultural differences. When explanations that emphasize cultural differences are used, there is a risk that cultural identities and differences are assumed to be static, and that placing people in distinct cultural categories is assumed to be simple (Honkatukia

& Suurpää 2008, 48). The significance of cultural background to any individual is impossible to know beforehand. The individual’s relationship to it may be highly per-sonal and ambiguous. (Anis 2008; Lepola 2007, 208; Härkäpää & Peltola 2005, 148.) The cultural interpreter discussed the problems involved in explanations based on cultural differences:

(10) It is easy to use culture to explain things, because that way you don’t have to think more closely. However, it is difficult to talk about a uniform Russian culture, because the clients have moved out of Russia at different points in time, some during the Soviet era. Also, the clients come from re-gions that differ from each other a lot. Rather than considering cultural dif-ferences, it is important to take into account individual life situations and the stress involved in the immigration process. (CI.)

The cultural interpreter suggests that it is easy to explain things away by referring to cultural differences, since this does not require more thorough reasoning. Excessive emphasis on cultural difference may lead to all individual problems being defined as expressions of a different culture, which causes workers to ignore other factors that

contribute to displacement. This increases polarization between the native population and the immigrants (see. Heikkilä-Daskalopoulos 2008, 14; Stier 2004). The clients’

specific needs are not necessarily linked to the different culture, but to their different life experiences and the process of moving to another country (Anis 2008, 28-29).

The issues at hand may simply be seen differently by different individuals: the offici-als may see difficulties in interaction as stemming from a different culture, while the immigrants see the officials’ policies as the problem (Huttunen et al. 2005, 35). Ex-planations can also be found in personal relationships and socio-economic position (Ikäläinen et al. 2003, 28). Cultural environments certainly can affect a person’s way of thinking, but in discussing this it is necessary to define more clearly what we mean by cultural differences. In connection with cultural differences, the workers mention other differences, such as:

(11) Differences in legislation (W1).

(12) Discomfort with support work (W5).

The same themes came up in the interviews with the clients. The clients experienced child protection work as interfering with the family’s internal matters:

(13) The problem with Finnish child protection is that the workers will not let you raise your children in peace (C6).

Differences in legislation and experiencing discomfort with support work may be clo-sely connected, since these two can certainly hinder the building of cooperation.

Social work and child protection can be very unfamiliar to people coming from outside the western culture (Anis 2008, 28). For example, taking children into custody is an alien concept in many cultures where public authorities hardly ever interfere with child-rearing, and where children may, at most, be placed in the custody of their rela-tives (Heikkilä-Daskalopoulos 2008, 32). In Russia, custody means loss of parental rights, an irreversible process that leaves a mark in the person’s record. This may affect the clients’ attitudes towards child protection workers and their discomfort with support work (Mikkola 2008).

One of the interviewees felt that child protection meant interfering with family life. The interviewee particularly felt that problems arose with Finnish child protection services specifically. The cultural interpreter sees that attitudes towards social work are in-fluenced by the clients’ experiences in their country of origin:

(14) The parents are not used to an outside party interfering with their child-rearing, demanding that they make changes. It can also be said that in Rus-sia people rarely turn to officials, and advice on child-rearing is primarily sought from parents and friends. (CI.)

In the cultural interpreter’s view, the discomfort with support work reflects a habit of handling family matters within the family’s immediate network. As extensive societal support systems are lacking in Russia, family, friends and relatives are considered

to be the family’s safety net (e.g. Sailas et al. 1996, 252). Many immigrants compare the Finnish system to the system in their country of origin, which can make it difficult to adjust to the new system (Forsander 1994, 56-66).

It is noteworthy that the clients did not talk about cultural differences as an obstacle to cooperation, but rather saw the lack of a shared language as the main challenge, as described in the previous chapter. Another challenge mentioned by the clients was created by different practices in child-rearing:

(15) Different views on child-rearing (C3).

(16) Different ideas on how children should be raised (C6).

The universal basis for child-rearing has been assumed to be that parents have their children’s best interest in mind (Värri 2000, 134). However, what is considered a good future or in the child’s best interest varies with time and from one culture to another, as do the means considered to bring these about (Alitolppa-Niitamo 2005, 103). In the interviews, the cultural interpreter discussed how child-centered principles may be perceived as alien by many families:

(17) The child-centered approach in Finnish child protection may be seen as something quite alien. The lack of acceptance towards the Finnish child-centered approach also stems from not understanding the values and structures behind it. In addition, few clients have any contacts with Finnish mothers or knowledge of information sources that could provide them with more information on child-rearing. In this situation, it is difficult for them to reflect on their own child-rearing style. (CI.)

The cultural interpreter suggested that the child-centered approach in Finnish child protection may be perceived as alien to Russian families. However, the Finnish Child Protection Act and the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child highlight the child’s right to participation and a central role in child protection (Act 417/2007, UN 1989).

Consequently, the worker should try to provide room for the child’s story and expe-riences to be heard. In the cultural interpreter’s view, this premise is difficult to per-ceive if the client is not aware of the values and goals underlying the child-centered approach, or why Finnish child-rearing styles might be better than the client’s own.

The cultural interpreter adds, however, that:

(18) Deficient care or harmful child-rearing practices should not be exp-lained through culture, because it means that the issues will remain out of reach. Also, even if there are child-rearing problems in some families of Rus-sian descent, it does not mean that they concern all RusRus-sian families or that they are part of the culture. (CI.)

The above quote concisely summarizes the observation that using cultural differen-ces as explanations is not a fruitful approach. If cultural differendifferen-ces are assumed to

be static, the workers may not even attempt to influence certain issues, because they are considered unchangeable. The cultural interpreter also brought up the observati-on that generalizing the child-rearing problems seen in a few Russian families to the entire Russian culture does not create an accurate image.

As a whole, the clients’ and workers’ different starting points and presuppositions, which may not be entirely clear to either party, can result in disempowerment in many respects. For the clients, the unfamiliarity with support work and the concept of child-centeredness may be a problem. In such cases the client does not want to receive the offered help, and help may be experienced as an extra source of stress, deple-ting the family’s resources even further. It is noteworthy that the workers talk about cultural differences, while the clients talk about differences in child-rearing. However, using cultural differences as an explanation is not necessarily a fruitful approach, since it does not help the client to solve problems, nor does it provide opportunities to work things out. Also, phenomena such as cultural differences should be named and dissected with greater specificity, not merely handled collectively under the topic of “culture”. Differences in child-rearing styles appeared to the clients as challenges to cooperation, but even when child-rearing styles do actually differ, it is important to emphasize and strive towards ethical ideals that do not change with time or society (see Launonen & Pulkkinen 2004, 17). The families should also be offered informati-on informati-on child-rearing and its underlying values, so that the self-reflectiinformati-on that is integral to empowerment becomes possible.