414038 ISWXXX10.

1177/0020872811414038DeepakInternational Social Work

Article i s w

International Social Work

Globalization, power
55(6) 779­–793
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
and resistance: co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020872811414038
Postcolonial and isw.sagepub.com

transnational feminist
perspectives for
social work practice

Anne C. Deepak
Texas State University, USA

Abstract
Postcolonial and transnational feminist perspectives on globalization,
power and resistance can transform our approach to human rights and
development in international social work. This analysis of globalization as
historical, gendered and complicated by cross-cutting power dynamics
from the personal to the national to the global allows a nuanced approach
that is in solidarity with the perspectives of stakeholders in the global
South and marginalized populations in the global North.

Keywords
globalization, postcolonial feminist perspective, resistance, solidarity,
transnational feminism

Introduction
There have been compelling calls to re-envision international social work
through more theoretical attention to globalization (Dominelli, 2010), more
focus on global policies and power relationships (Manion, 2005; Midgely,

Corresponding author: Anne C. Deepak, Assistant Professor, School of Social Work, 601
University Drive, Texas State University – San Marcos, San Marcos, Texas 78666, USA.
Email: ad21@txstate.edu
780 International Social Work 55(6)

2007b) and the impact of these issues on domestic inequalities and the lives
of the families and communities with whom we work (Midgely, 2007b).
These calls can be understood as responses to the gaps in the current litera-
ture in international social work and to criticisms of international social
work’s approach to development (Jonsson, 2010; Kreitzer and Wilson, 2010)
and human rights (Haug, 2005). A key component of these critiques of this
dominant international social work perspective is the lack of attention to
historic and current structural inequalities that impede global justice and to
the privilege and power held by social workers from the global North.
The concept of international development shaped by modernization
theory posits that global inequality exists ‘due to technological and cultural
differences between nations’ rather than historic and present structural
inequalities. In addition, the theory puts forth the idea that ‘every country
can achieve the level of development seen today in the global North through
a free market economy tailored to the culture of their country’ (Macionis,
2006, cited in Healy, 2008: 12). Many governments, donors and interna-
tional organizations providing aid utilize this theory, and dependency on
this aid by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hinders the pursuit of
bold critiques of structural inequality (Chowdhury, 2009).
Mainstream human rights and development discourse have been chal-
lenged as paternalistic extensions of the civilizing mission of colonialism,
reinforcing the narrative of Western savior to passive Third World victims
(Chowdhury, 2009; Escobar, 1995; Mutua, 2002). Human rights discourse
is understood by some as based in concepts of individual rights rather
than community and cultural rights, used selectively by the West as justi-
fication to intervene in other countries when it benefits Western interests
(Aziz, 1999).
While this interpretation of human rights discourse also has its critics,
the emphasis on global structural inequalities merits attention. A lack of
attention to the global inequalities that shape the lives of those they seek to
help can compromise the honorable intentions of human rights activists
(Kabeer, 2004). For instance, campaigns against child labor and sweat-
shops must take into account the realities of global poverty, and the reasons
children are forced to work. In no instance can child labor of any kind be
justified, but efforts to stop the practice must be grounded in an understand-
ing of the economic realities that poor children and their families face. In
countries where there is no social safety net, children and workers who are
‘saved’ by campaigns to stop these violations of human rights can end up
working in even less safe occupations such as prostitution or bonded labor.
In order to avoid these unintended consequences it is essential to start with
an analysis that is grounded in an understanding of globalization, power,
Deepak 781

resistance and the local realities of those we seek to help. This analysis
will enable the fight against child labor to include a focus on the enlarge-
ment and maintenance of public policies that protect and promote child
development in the context of families and communities.
We can respond to the calls for re-envisioning international social work
by using postcolonial and transnational feminist theoretical perspectives to
analyze globalization, power and resistance. These theoretical perspectives
have been used in fields such as nursing (Anderson et al., 2003), women’s
and gender studies (Naghibi, 2007), social work (Gray, 2010) and interna-
tional relations (Ling, 2007). Scholars and practitioners have applied the
theories in work throughout Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe, the Middle
East and North America.
Postcolonial and transnational feminist perspectives offer theoretical
attention to the complexity of power relations within and between macro,
mezzo and micro systems that is well suited to the mission and values of
social work, particularly social justice and self-determination. This analysis
of globalization as historical, gendered and complicated by cross-cutting
power dynamics from the personal to the national to the global allows a
nuanced approach to development and human rights in international social
work practice that is in solidarity with the perspectives of marginalized
populations in the global South and North.

Globalization
Globalization comprises a multiplicity of forces and processes with negative
and positive dimensions (Kahn and Kellner, 2007) that impact everyday life
in the global North and South (Alphonse et al., 2008; Dominelli, 2010).
Globalization’s negative dimensions have resulted in devastating effects on
the health and well-being of populations without power throughout the
world (Alphonse et al., 2008; Dominelli, 2010; Midgley, 2007a). Despite the
negative forces and consequences of globalization, it is equally important to
identify the spaces where individuals, communities and social workers resist
and create change drawing from the positive dimensions of globalization,
such as increased transnational flow of communication, information,
technology, culture and a sense of global citizenship.
Globalization has been defined as ‘a set of social and economic processes
that entail intensified global interconnectedness (and subsequent changes
in local livelihoods), via the mobility and flows of culture, capital, informa-
tion, resistance, technologies, production, people, commodities, images and
ideologies’ (Gunewardena and Kingsolver, 2007: 7–8). The flow of capital
and production is exemplified through transnational corporations (TNCs)
782 International Social Work 55(6)

and multinational corporations (MNCs) that relocate production and

services wherever the cheapest labor and best business conditions can be
found. The flow of people occurs through travel and migrations, producing
transnational experiences, identities and communities. Cultural and infor-
mational flows occur through these travels and migrations, mass media and
the Internet.
Social work scholars who have addressed globalization highlight the
economistic perspective (Midgley, 2007b) related to the impact of global
and national economic policies. The adverse affects of these policies cut
across the global North and South, and class locations, but it is the poor
who have been most negatively affected. These effects include ‘loss of
jobs, low-paid work that is insufficient to provide a decent standard of
living, health hazards, rising food and energy prices, environmental degra-
dation, armed conflict, and resource depletion’ (Dominelli, 2010: 600).
Other negative effects are increases in economic inequality and gender and
ethnic oppression against immigrants, retrenchments in social expenditures
and programs, the decreasing power of governments to protect their domes-
tic economies, the spread of a new individualist emphasis in [society and]
social policy that replaces earlier collectivist social welfare ideals (Midgley,
2007b: 31–2).

Neoliberalism and global inequality

Policies enforced by international bodies such as the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are aimed at facili-
tating global economic integration. These policies are guided by the princi-
ples of the economic philosophy of neoliberalism, based on ‘the belief that
private enterprise and individual initiative are the keys to the creation of
wealth, the elimination of poverty, and the improvement in human welfare’
(Finn et al., 2010: 247). The policies associated with neoliberalism are free
trade, privatization of public enterprises, deregulation, cuts to social pro-
grams, weakening of union power, and an assumption that the rules of the
market rather than public purpose should govern societies (Kreitzer and
Wilson, 2010: 703). The policies of neoliberalism can be understood as an
extension of modernization theory (Kreitzer and Wilson, 2010).
Proponents of neoliberalism acknowledge that neoliberal policies do
cause painful dislocations and disadvantages to certain populations, but
argue that this pain will be ameliorated through the economic growth that
will eventually affect all segments of societies (Wilson, 2004). It is argued
that, in impoverished nations, this growth will lead to democracy and the
protection of human rights (Ross-Sheriff, 2007: 134). Thus far, the
Deepak 783

evidence, which includes growing unemployment, decreasing wages and

reductions in social rights, suggests that these growing dislocations and
inequalities are not temporary, but permanent fixtures of neoliberalism
(Klein, 2007; Wilson, 2004).
The negative effects of neoliberalism on social work practice are ubiq-
uitous. Institutions that have been central to the profession, such as social
insurance, welfare, public education and social services are seen, from
this perspective, as expensive obstacles to maximizing economic perfor-
mance and productivity (Reese, 2007). Funding for these institutions has
been cut repeatedly since the 1980s, and the neoliberal philosophy has
resulted in the privatization of many social services previously provided
by the state. Limited funding, continuous pressure for documented out-
comes, grant-writing and fundraising take managers and staff away from
direct service in the form of client care (Baines, 2010), whether based in
public or private settings.
In many countries in the global South, social services are no longer
provided by the state due to WTO and IMF mandates emanating from neo-
liberal economic development policies recommended in the Washington
Consensus of 1989, fiscal austerity, privatization, trade liberalization and
an emphasis on minimizing the role of the government (Stiglitz, 2005).
Consequently, social services are often funded via Western governments
through international aid agencies directly to Non-governmental
Organizations (NGOs) that, in turn, have their own political agendas
(Lavalette and Ferguson, 2007). These agendas may or may not be in
concert with the needs and perspectives of the communities and nations
they are located in, thus even further undermining the sovereignty of the
governments of developing countries.
In addition to the disempowering forces that are a part of globalization,
there are also empowering forces that support individual and collective
movements and expressions of resistance. The flow of global culture and
information through film, music, television, the Internet and cell phones
offers possibilities for individuals and collectives to gain and share knowl-
edge, experiences and support and participate in global civil society. In many
countries, access to the Internet is a privilege very few people have access to.

Power and resistance

The concepts of power and resistance are central to social work practice. In
examining the relations of power that shape the possibilities and limits of
globalization, it is crucial that resistance to power is acknowledged and
woven into the discussion. This position is informed by Gramsci’s writings
784 International Social Work 55(6)

on hegemony and Foucault’s notion that ‘there are no relations of power

without resistance’ (Foucault, 1980: 142).
Embedded within the processes of globalization are a variety of forms of
power ranging from coercive to persuasive that work together to produce
the ‘consent’ to the power of the dominant group by non-dominant groups.
This ‘consent’ is referred to as hegemony. Persuasive power, or ideological
persuasion, produces consent via ‘common sense’ through institutions such
as schools, media and religious institutions, which is supported by coercive
power asserted by the state through law, police and armed forces. Hegemony
is a form of control that a dominant group uses to assert power over other
social groups, in such a way that non-dominant groups are persuaded to
consent to the dominant social order, internalizing these attitudes, even
when it is against their interests (Ledwith and Springett, 2010: 159–60).
Resistance to hegemony is referred to as counter-hegemony.
Currently, global neoliberal hegemonic norms emphasize individualism
and consumerism as the best way to express one’s individuality and create
a better world. As a profession, our counter-hegemonic vision is of inclu-
sion, community, and valuing the contributions and health and well-being
of vulnerable and marginalized populations. We envision a world where it
is simply common sense that all children are fed and educated, resources
are shared equitably, and all voices are heard and valued.
Those with little or no access to power can express resistance to
hegemony in other ways. This resistance can be defined as

any mental or behavioral act through which a person attempts to expose, withstand,
repel, stop, prevent, abstain from, strive against, impede, refuse to comply with, or
oppose any form of violence or oppression (including any type of disrespect), or
the conditions which make such acts possible. Any attempt to imagine or establish
a life based on one’s self or others, including any effort to redress the harm caused
by violence or other forms of oppression. (Wade, 1997: 25)

Resistance to power in its many forms can be manifested through organ-

ized social activism, protests, boycotts, public awareness campaigns, civil
disobedience, coalition building and policy advocacy. It can also be mani-
fested in indirect ways such as silence, withdrawal, and refusal to consent
through music, poetry and alternative practices that envision a just world.

Postcolonial and transnational feminist theory

Power and resistance are central themes of postcolonial and transnational
feminist theory as well. These theoretical perspectives emphasize the com-
plexity of power relations embedded in historical and transnational contexts
Deepak 785

and the agency of non-Western women. They include critiques of the politi-
cal and often patriarchal implications of colonialism, nationalism, funda-
mentalisms, neo-liberalism, neo-colonialism, global feminism, and an
examination of the gendered workings of power within families, communi-
ties, organizations, nations and transnational contexts. In addition, these
theoretical positions emphasize the multiple power positions between and
across identities, reaching beyond the binary divides of colonizer–colonized,
oppressor–oppressed (Grewal and Kaplan, 1994).
Postcolonial feminist theory emphasizes the agency of third world
women who have been characterized in discourses of colonialism and devel-
opment as passive victims of oppressive religious and cultural traditions in
need of being rescued by White men on a civilizing mission (Chatterjee,
1993; Mohanty, 1991; Spivak, 1995). Nationalist representations portray
women as willing participants in patriarchal oppressive practices (Spivak,
1995), or in opposition to the Western woman, who was constructed as
selfish, promiscuous, brazen and materialistic (Chatterjee, 1993).
While this theoretical position recognizes women’s oppression in mul-
tiple sites, through colonialism, nationalism, fundamentalism, patriarchies
and global economic structures, it also affirms their agency. Agency is
recognized as partial and limited by a variety of historical and structural
constraints. From this theoretical perspective, Western women’s agency is
also partial and limited, although from a different set of historical and
structural constraints depending on their location in the West.
Grewal and Caplan (1994), representing a transnational feminist practice
perspective, make the argument that women’s concerns around the world
must be addressed in relation to ‘the historicized particularity of their
relationship to multiple patriarchies as well as to international economic
hegemonies’ (p. 17). They introduce the idea of scattered hegemonies,
which include ‘global economic structures, patriarchal nationalisms,
“authentic” forms of tradition, local structures of domination, and legal-
juridical oppression on multiple levels’ (p. 17). Further, a transnational
feminist practice perspective seeks ‘creative ways to move beyond con-
structed oppositions without ignoring the histories that have informed those
conflicts or the valid concerns about power relations that have represented
or structured these conflicts up to this point’ (Grewal and Caplan, 1994: 17).
The conceptual tool of ‘scattered hegemonies’ encompasses simultane-
ously the hegemonies of globalization, neo-colonization, fundamentalism
and nationalism as they intersect. It enables an examination of the notion
that if there are scattered hegemonies then there must also be scattered
forms of resistance that can link the local to the global transnationally using
the positive dimensions of globalization.
786 International Social Work 55(6)

Applying postcolonial and transnational

feminist theories to globalization
Postcolonial and transnational feminist theories help us examine globali-
zation from a gendered perspective considering the intersections and lay-
ers of history and power and resistance at every system level. As we
examine the scattered hegemonies of neoliberalism and development, we
can see the intersections of these ideas in the promotion of free market
individualism at the expense of the collective good and global interde-
pendence against the glaring backdrop of global structural inequality. We
can also see scattered resistance to these scattered hegemonies, including
fundamentalisms and patriarchies. It is through linking these scattered
forms of local and transnational resistance together that we can create
larger movements for change.
A gendered perspective foregrounds the reality that women represent
more than 80 percent of the unskilled labor force in transnational produc-
tion and services globally (Sassen, 2006: 27). MNCs and TNCs prefer to
hire young, single women, because they are perceived to be able to perform
monotonous repetitive work for low wages (Jauch, 2002) and to be less
likely to unionize or challenge their working conditions than male workers
(Kabeer, 2004). Women from the global South are also being targeted by
the global North to fill the growing needs of a rapidly aging population,
thereby creating disruptions of families and a shortage of health care work-
ers in the home countries (Browne and Braun, 2008).
At the same time, some women have benefitted from globalization.
Many women from higher class positions have improved their economic
and social status, whether residing in the global North or South. Even
women who are being exploited in multiple ways by TNCs or MNCs find
some sense of autonomy and empowerment through this labor in relation
to the other options that are available in the informal economies of their
countries (Kabeer, 2004). The exploitation of women by TNCs and MNCs
must be addressed at the same time as we address global and gender
inequalities and the lack of infrastructure that produce such terrible ‘options’.

Considering global inequality and history

From postcolonial and transnational feminist theoretical perspectives,
global neo-liberal policies are enforced on top of an historically unequal
global playing field that started with colonialism, overlaid on pre-existing
inequalities based on gender, class, ethnicity, religion and caste. Through
Deepak 787

colonialism, human and natural resources were extracted from countries

in the global South and continue through the present through the debt bur-
den of the global South, structural adjustment policies (Polack, 2004),
‘free’ trade policies, and intellectual property rights (IPR) provisions in
the WTO (Manion, 2005).
Many countries in the global South carry an enormous debt burden,
which originated in loans made by IMF and private investors from the
global North for infrastructure development projects and military aid post-
independence (Polack, 2004). Some of these loans were made to dictators
and corrupt governments who used the money for their personal gain. Other
loans were made based on projects and recommendations proposed by the
IMF and World Bank that failed, and the countries still have to pay the loans
(Stiglitz, 2002). Due to increases in interest rates by the US in the 1980s, the
debt burden doubled in many countries, leaving them reduced to paying
only interest (Klein, 2007). Countries that were interested in restructuring
their loans had to agree to structural adjustment programs as demanded by
the World Bank and the IMF. These programs, grounded in neoliberalism,
require severe cutbacks in government spending on health care, wages, edu-
cation and other social services, and the privatization of government-owned
functions such as utilities and water (Polack, 2004).
The IPR provisions and free trade policies that countries must agree to in
order to participate in the WTO deepen institutionalized structural inequal-
ity. Free trade policies require that developing countries open their borders
to trade and remove any tariffs or subsidies for any industries to enable ‘free
trade’, unlike the United States, which retains tariffs and subsidies for their
farmers. This creates a situation where US goods and food imports are
flooded into the markets of developing countries, which negatively affects
their ability to produce food and economic growth for their own people
(Klein, 2007).
IPRs are used in the global North as a way of regulating and standard-
izing patent rights and forming a system of accountability. IPRs are based
on the Western idea of private ownership of knowledge; applying IPR
globally undermines indigenous knowledge systems that contend that
knowledge cannot be owned (Manion, 2005). IPRs have been used suc-
cessfully in the global North, an area in which exploitation by MNCs in
the global South has emerged in the form of bio-piracy, the ‘nonconsensual
extraction of indigenous knowledge or biological resources to “inven-
tions” derived from knowledge without sharing benefits’ (Zerda-Sarmiento
and Forero-Pineda, 2002, cited in Manion, 2005: 83). An example of
biopiracy in India is when the Texas company, RiceTec, took out a patent
788 International Social Work 55(6)

on basmati rice, claiming that the company had been responsible for
creating its properties (Shiva, 1999). A community group in India fought
this in court and eventually won the case, but this practice continues rap-
idly throughout the global South (Manion, 2005).

Global scattered resistance

As we consider scattered global resistance to globalization, it is important
to emphasize that the forces of scattered resistance may or may not inter-
sect with each other in an integrated kind of way either theoretically, con-
ceptually or on the ground. Social workers in different places and different
times could be working within the international arenas of the UN, WTO,
World Bank and IMF, or with MNCs or TNCs in efforts to make visible the
effects of globalization on marginalized populations. At the same time,
other social workers may be organizing protests outside the doors of these
same institutions. Social workers based in the global North may be work-
ing with communities and organizations based in the global South working
for women’s rights and freedoms against the backdrop of fundamentalisms,
while at the same time working within the global North to create awareness
around the misconception that cultures and religions associated with the
global South, such as Islam and Hinduism, are timeless, unchanging and
inherently oppressive to women.

Transnational solidarities
As a profession, however, our participation in scattered resistance must be
informed by a new common sense, a counter-hegemonic notion of transna-
tional solidarities rather than de-historicized individualism or even the
notion of partnership. Kreitzer and Wilson (2010) argue that the idea of
partnership between the global North and South assumes an equal power
that does not exist. Instead, they advocate solidarity: ‘rather than seeing
ourselves as helping others, the sense of solidarity that we are all in this
together and that there are global problems that need to be addressed by all
of us, for the benefit of all of us’(Kreitzer and Wilson, 2010: 714). Through
acknowledging the reality of current and historical power inequities, the
idea of solidarity addresses the narrative of the global North ‘saving’ the
passive global South.
Transnational solidarities can be formed by drawing on the benefits of
globalization. Through the movement and migrations of people and global
communication, we can mobilize, support and link ‘communities of
Deepak 789

resistance’ (Wilson and Whitmore, 2000, cited in Haug, 2005: 133). The
idea is to ‘build a resistance—both hi-tech and grassroots, both focused
and fragmented—that is as global, and as capable of coordinated action, as
the multinationals it seeks to subvert’ (Klein, 2000: 446, cited in Sewpaul,
2006: 430).

Counter-hegemony: ‘Another World is Possible’

One of the best representations of scattered global resistance to neo-liberal
hegemony is the World Social Forum. This group emerged in 2001 at pro-
tests against the World Economic Forum. It is a loose collection of NGOs
and community groups from around the world whose motto is ‘Another
World is Possible.’ Members agree to the principle that it is not an organi-
zation or a group but

… an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas,

formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and inter-linking for
effective action, by groups and movements of civil society that are opposed to
neoliberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of
imperialism, and are committed to building a planetary society directed towards
fruitful relationships among Humankind and between it and the Earth. (World
Social Forum, 2011)

The World Social Forum has met yearly since 2001, and within every
participating country there are national social forums. The first US Social
Forum was held in 2007 and met for a second time in 2010. The World
Social Forum has an active presence in cyberspace, through multiple web-
sites in multiple languages. The US Social Forum has a fan page on
Facebook and updates fans on a weekly basis with articles and videos
chronicling programs and social movement activities.

Exploring and celebrating local and global alternatives

Exploring alternatives and supporting advocacy for an alternative world
are key methods of resistance to neoliberalism (Sewpaul, 2003). The
Word Social Forum models an alternative form of global resistance
through their decision-making, in which the voices of marginalized
groups are expressed and taken seriously, a vision of participatory democ-
racy. In its global, regional and national manifestations its presence
emphasizes the ways in which the struggles of marginalized people are
interconnected and interrelated.
790 International Social Work 55(6)

Local alternatives can also be explored by recognizing resistance in

everyday life. Practices that support individual and community sustenance
and growth that take place outside of monetary systems must also be
recognized as resistance. Barter economies, community loan systems, con-
servation, recycling and reuse of materials and sustenance economies can
all be understood as organic forms of resistance to neoliberalism.

Transforming international social work

Guided by postcolonial and transnational feminist analyses of globalization,
we can approach international social work differently. In teaching, research
and practice, we must acknowledge and engage with global structural forces
(Sewpaul, 2006) and use consciousness raising and praxis to enable students
and the profession to make the connections between personal suffering and
structural oppression on a global level (George et al., 2009; Sewpaul, 2006).
As we do this, we must center the principles of solidarity as we critically
evaluate our own privilege based on our global social locations, and find
ways to leverage our privilege to advocate and work towards changes that
can improve the lives of those we seek to help. Centering the principles of
solidarity means that we must start with local knowledge to understand the
local realities and struggles that people are facing.
In the case of child labor, it is crucial that we begin by talking to the
children and their families to best understand their immediate needs as well
as their ideas for ending the practice. We could leverage our own privilege
and participate in scattered resistance to this practice. This would include
multiple and sometimes contradictory approaches such as publicizing
the issues of lack of enforcement of laws against child labor; advocating for
social services, education and support for children and their families as a
way of preventing the occurrence of child labor; organizing boycotts of
products sold in the global North by companies that rely on child labor;
negotiating with corporations to create good working conditions for adults
and investing in the communities they are located in. We can also use our
privilege to work within the systems of IMF, World Bank and WTO to edu-
cate members on the effects of neo-liberal economic policies on the daily
lives of poor families and children, as it is these policies that produce the
conditions that result in child labor.
Using postcolonial and transnational feminist perspectives to analyze
globalization, we can foreground the importance of the historic and contexts
of international power relations in relation to power imbalances at familial,
local and national levels. This analysis also requires a focus on resistance
Deepak 791

that enables us to move away from the savior–victim narrative, and to

examine our own privilege and power on the global stage.

References
Alphonse, M., P. George and K. Moffatt (2008) ‘Redefining Social Work Stan-
dards in the Context of Globalization: Lessons from India’, International
Social Work 51(2): 145–58.
Anderson, J.P., J. Perry, C. Blue, A. Henderson and K. Khan (2003) ‘“Rewriting” Cul-
tural Safety within the Postcolonial and Postnational Feminist Project: Toward New
Epistemologies of Healing’, Advances in Nursing Science 26(3): 196–214.
Aziz, N. (1999) ‘The Human Rights Debate in an Era of Globalization’, in P. Van
Ness (ed.) Debating Human Rights: Critical Essays from the United States and
Asia, pp. 32–55. London: Routledge.
Baines, D. (2010) ‘Neoliberal Restructuring, Activism/Participation, and Social
Unionism in the Nonprofit Social Services’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly 39: 10–28.
Browne, C. and K. Braun (2008) ‘Globalization, Women’s Migration, and the Long-
term-Care Workforce’, The Gerontologist 48(1): 16–24.
Chatterjee, P. (1993) The Nation and its Fragments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Chowdhury, E. (2009) ‘Locating Global Feminisms Elsewhere: Braiding US Women
of Color and Transnational Feminisms’, Cultural Dynamics 21(1): 51–78.
Dominelli, L. (2010) ‘Globalization, Contemporary Challenges and Social Work
Practice’, International Social Work 53: 599–614.
Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development, the Making and Unmaking of the
Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Finn, J., L. Nybell and J. Shook (2010) ‘The Meaning and Making of Childhood
in the Era of Globalization: Challenges for Social Work’, Children and Youth
Services Review 32: 246–54.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings,
1972–1977 (ed. and transl. by Colin Gordon). Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press.
George, P., K. Moffatt, M. Alphonse, A. Kanitkar, V. Anand and J. Chamberlain
(2009) ‘Strategies of Resistance in the Context of Marginalization and
Globalization in India’, Social Development Issues 31(3): 1–14.
Gray, M. (2010) ‘Making Sense of the Waves: Wipeout or Still Riding High?’,
Affilia 25(4): 368–89.
Grewal, I. and C. Caplan (1994) ‘Introduction: Transnational Feminist Practices
and Questions of Postmodernity’, in I. Grewal and C. Caplan (eds) Scattered
Hegemonies: Postmodernity and Transnational Feminist Practices, pp. 1–33.
Minneapolis, MN: Regents of the University of Minnesota.
Gunewardena, N. and A. Kingsolver (2007) ‘Introduction’, in N. Gunewardena and
A. Kingsolver (eds) The Gender of Globalization: Women Navigating Cultural
and Economic Marginalities, pp. 3–21. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced
Research Press.
792 International Social Work 55(6)

Haug, E. (2005) ‘Critical Reflections on the Emerging Discourse of International

Social Work’, International Social Work 48(2): 126–35.
Healy, L. (2008) International Social Work: Professional Action in an Interdepen-
dent World, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jauch, H. (2002) ‘Export Processing Zones and the Quest for Sustainable
Development: A Southern African Perspective’, Environment & Urbanization
14(1): 101–13.
Jonsson, J. (2010) ‘Beyond Empowerment: Changing Local Communities’,
International Social Work 53(3): 393–406.
Kabeer, N. (2004) ‘Globalisation, Labor Standards, and Women’s Rights: Dilemmas of
Collective (In)Action in an Interdependent World’, Feminist Economics 10(1):
3–35.
Kahn, R. and D. Kellner (2007) ‘Resisting Globalization’, in G. Ritzer (ed.) The
Blackwell Companion to Globalization, pp. 622–74. Malden, MA and Oxford,
UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Khaja, K., C. Barkdull, M. Augustine and D. Cunningham (2009) ‘Female Genital
Cutting: African Women Speak Out’, International Social Work 52(6): 727–41.
Klein, N. (2007) The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. NY:
Metropolitan Books.
Kreitzer, L. and M. Wilson (2010) ‘Shifting Perspectives on International Alliances
in Social Work: Lessons from Ghana and Nicaragua’, International Social Work
53(5): 701–19.
Lavalette, M. and I. Ferguson (2007) ‘Democratic Language and Neo-liberal Prac-
tice: The Problem with Civil Society’, International Social Work 50(4): 447–59.
Ledwith, M. and J. Springett (2010) Participatory Practice: Community-based
Action for Transformative Change. Portland, OR: The Policy Press.
Ling, L.M. (2007) ‘Said’s Exile: Strategic Insights for Postcolonial Feminists’,
Millennium – Journal of International Studies 36: 135.
Manion, H.K. (2005) ‘A Global Perspective on Intellectual Property Rights: A
Social Work View’, International Social Work 48(1): 77–87.
Midgley, J. (2007a) ‘Global Inequality, Power and the Unipolar World: Implications
for Social Work’, International Social Work 50(5): 613–26.
Midgley, J. (2007b) ‘Perspectives on Globalization, Social Justice and Welfare’,
Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 34(2): 17–36.
Mohanty, C. (1991) ‘Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Dis-
courses’, in C. Mohanty, A. Russo and T. Lourdes (eds) Third World Women
and the Politics of Feminism, pp. 51–79. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University
Press.
Mutua, M. (2002) Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique. Philadelphia,
PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Naghibi, N. (2007) Rethinking Global Sisterhood: Western Feminism and Iran.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Polack, R. (2004) ‘Social Justice and the Global Economy: New Challenges for
Social Work in the 21st Century’, Social Work 49(2): 281–90.
Deepak 793

Reese, E. (2007) ‘Politicians, Think Tanks, and the Global Promotion of the
“Wisconsin Model” of Welfare Reform’, in A. Cabezas, E. Reese and M.
Waller (eds) The Wages of Empire: Neoliberal Policies, Repression, and
Women’s Poverty, pp. 87–97. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Ross-Sheriff, F. (2007) ‘Globalization as a Women’s Issue Revisited’, Affilia
22(2): 133–7.
Sassen, S. (2006) Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global
Assemblages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sewpaul, V. (2003) ‘Reframing Epistemologies and Practice through International
Exchanges: Global and Local Discourses in the Development of Critical Con-
sciousness’, in L.D. Dominelli and W.T. Bernard (eds) Broadening Horizons:
International Exchanges in Social Work. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Sewpaul, V. (2006) ‘The Global–Local Dialectic: Challenges for African Scholar-
ship and Social Work in a Post-colonial World’, British Journal of Social Work
36(3): 419–34.
Shiva, V. (1999) ‘Monocultures, Monopolies, Myths and the Masculinization of
Agriculture’, Development 42(2): 35–38.
Spivak, G. (1995) ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’, in B. Ashcroft, G. Griffins and
H. Tiffin (eds) The Postcolonial Studies Reader, pp. 24–8. London: Routledge.
Stiglitz, J. (2002) Globalization and its Discontents. New York, NY: W.W. Norton
and Company Inc.
Stiglitz, J. (2005) ‘The Post Washington Consensus’. The Initiative for Policy Dia-
logue. Retrieved 22 February 2011 from: http://policydialogue.org/files/events/
Stiglitz_Post_Washington_Consensus_Paper.pdf
Wade, A. (1997) ‘Small Acts of Living: Everyday Resistance to Violence and Other
Forms of Oppression’, Contemporary Family Therapy 19(1): 23–39.
Wilson, M. (2004) The Global Hegemony of Neoliberal Values: The Challenge to
Social Work. Prepared for presentation at the Annual Conference of the Alberta
College of Social Workers, Calgary, Alberta. Retrieved 10 July 2010 from: http://
www.acsw.ab.ca/acsw_conference/global_showdown_-_maureen_wilson.pdf
World Social Forum (2011) World Social Forum Charter of Principles. Retrieved
22 February 2011 from: http://fsm2011.org/en/wsf-2011

Author biography
Anne C. Deepak, PhD, LMSW, is Assistant Professor at the School of Social Work
at Texas State University – San Marcos, USA.