Social Work Education, 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2015.1074674

Reflexive Development: A Model for

Helping Social Workers Contribute to
a Sustainable Global Future
Eric A. Des Marais, Sarah M. Bexell & Subhasis Bhadra
Downloaded by [University of Denver - Main Library] at 17:35 31 October 2015

It is difficult for many social work students to grasp the importance they and their
traditional client base play in global environmental issues. International development
generally focuses on supporting human development through the development of natural
resources. However, increased human consumption everywhere in the world is disrupting
the global system upon which all life depends. Continued Western consumption habits are
simply unsustainable. It is therefore incumbent that any increase in consumption, even in
the ‘developing’ world, be considered in terms of global environmental sustainability;
change must also occur within the developed world. To address this problem, reflexive
processes that support transnational analysis and action must be developed. This paper
suggests classroom activities that help students analyze and problem solve around this
process of Reflexive Development.

Keywords: Environmental Justice; Social Work Education; Reflexivity; Social Development;

Sustainable Development

Introduction
The conceptual approach of person-in-environment has long been a mainstay in the
field of social work in the United States (Germain, 1973, 1978). While it is an excellent
conceptualization for social workers focused on the individual level, social work
students can have difficulty using it to account for social and environmental properties
that only emerge at the community, national, or global level (McKinnon, 2008). For
social work students, it can be especially difficult to grasp those complex, transnational
problems such as climate change and the resulting effects on local systems such as
increased natural disasters are more than the mere sum of individual actions.

Eric A. Des Marais & Sarah M. Bexell, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA;
Subhasis Bhadra, Department of Social Work, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
*Correspondence to: Eric A. Des Marais, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver, 2148 S Craig St, Denver,
CO 80208, USA. Tel.: 011-081-80-1845-3023; Email: [email protected]

q 2015 Taylor & Francis

 2 E. A. Des Marais et al.
Similarly, students have difficulty grasping how consumption in the developed world
bears direct impact upon the developing world. The field of social work has an
important role to play in the fields of sustainable development and humane education,
and social work students need a conceptual framework for learning about it (Mary,
2008). Traditionally, sustainable development refers to the utilization of natural
resources to support human development while maintaining the local environment
for future generations (Brundtland Commission, 1987). Building on the
methodological approach of humane education and the concept of reflexivity, a
core skill of social work practice, we suggest that students can learn to grasp these
transnational processes and learn how to affect change on them through Reflexive
Development.
Downloaded by [University of Denver - Main Library] at 17:35 31 October 2015

While Reflexive Development has in the past been defined as incorporating

reflexivity into the social processes of international development (Pieterse, 1998), we
suggest that Reflexive Development is the process of nurturing or growing
transnational reflexivity in which the process of social and ecological change in
which human life choices in developed countries are responsive to the needs of
developing areas of the world, but also maintain sustainability. In international
development, development usually refers to the process of helping people in poor
countries attain better lives. As increased consumption in rich countries puts pressure
on developing countries, change must also occur within developed countries—part
of the development process in rich countries must be to reduce waste and
overconsumption, because it is having negative consequences on the security of other
people, global climate, and all Earth’s systems. The concept of Reflexive Development
helps to not only critique current approaches to development, but also to point the
way to novel solutions.

Ecological Boundaries
For survival, humans depend completely on Earth’s ecosystems and the services they
provide, such as clean air and water, food, medicines, disease management, building
materials, fuel, climate regulation, buffering of storms, spiritual fulfillment, and
aesthetic enjoyment. Over the past 50 years, humans have negatively altered global
ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in
human history (WWF, 2014). The vast and detrimental changes to Earth’s ecosystems
are largely to meet rapidly growing, unsustainable and irresponsible human demands
for food, fresh water, timber, fiber, minerals, and fuel (Global Humanitarian Forum,
2009; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005b). This transformation of our planet
has contributed to substantial gains in human well-being and economic development
for a few, but at the cost of most human populations as well as almost all other species
we share the Earth with. The global ecological costs associated with these gains of a few
people have only recently become apparent. We now know that we as a species have so
degraded and destroyed parts of our life-support system that our health, well-being,
and survival are threatened (Raworth, 2012; Rockström et al., 2009; Zapf, 2010). It is
increasingly clear that environmental problems cannot be resolved through technical
 Social Work Education 3
solutions alone and that these ecological issues are forcing us to rethink what
development and progress means. These threats are not as new as some might think,
with one of the most prominent calls to action coming from the Limits to Growth
studies, first published in 1972 (Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004).
It would be prudent to consider our conscious and unconscious neglect and abuse
of the environment as a widespread social disorder and explore the consequences for
failure to understand that human behavior has created and continues to accelerate the
decline of global biodiversity that imperils the existence of most species, including
humans (Rockström et al., 2009; Tedeschi, Bexell, & Nesmith, 2013; Zapf, 2010). While
several authors attempted to take note of the environment as essential to the
consideration of human health (e.g., Lehmann & Coady, 2001; Miley, O’Melia, &
Downloaded by [University of Denver - Main Library] at 17:35 31 October 2015

DuBois, 2004; Sheafor & Horejsi, 2006; Yelaja, 1985), and several devoting their entire
career to enlightening the profession (e.g., Fred Besthorn, John Coates, Mel Gray),
their suggestions have gone unheeded and as the world watches daily news of
environmental deterioration, we remain ineffective in helping the very humans we
signed an oath to protect. What are the manifestations of our human-centric view of
the world and avoidant practices (i.e. denial) on human physical and psychological
health? To say the field of social work is aware but then not take action is problematic.

Linked Social and Ecological Systems

Threats of climate change, mass extinction, water shortages, limits of non-renewable
resources, and more prompt us to think holistically and develop the understanding of
linked social and ecological systems. Traditionally, social and ecological systems were
considered separate and even analyzed by different types of scientists and
professionals. This reductionist approach was also prevalent in the early roots of
social work (Zapf, 2010). Today we recognize the importance of scientists from a broad
array of disciplines working to counteract past shortsightedness (Manfredo, Vaske,
Rechkemmer, & Duke, 2014). One current perspective is that Social Ecological System
(SES) include ecological systems that are intricately linked with and affected by one or
more social systems (Anderies, Janssen, & Ostrom, 2004). Ecological systems are
loosely defined as interdependent systems of biological units and geophysical
elements, while social systems as interdependent systems of social organisms. Social
and ecological systems possess units that interact interdependently. Because social and
ecological systems are interlinked, an SES is a complex, adaptive system involving
multiple subsystems, as well as being embedded in multiple larger systems (Anderies
et al., 2004). To disregard one unit is to threaten others.
Earth’s continued sustainability for humans can no longer be taken for granted
(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005a; Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al.,
2015). We must first acknowledge our dismissal of ecological parameters as important
to the field of social work. Environmental change due to unchecked human
population growth and overconsumption now threaten our survival, with the poorest
and most vulnerable on Earth impacted most significantly (Raworth, 2012), making
this a social justice issue facing social work practitioners.
 4 E. A. Des Marais et al.
Humans living in developed countries have been initially buffered against
environmental changes by technology, the very foundation of global climate
disruptions that are especially affecting millions of people living in developing
countries (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009). However, even those living in
developed countries are now experiencing the effects of global decline (e.g., increased
severity and frequency of natural disasters, mass environmental immigration) and our
fundamental and inextricable dependence on nature’s services.
Anthropogenic-induced changes to Earth’s systems have caught up to humanity,
forcing us to reassess our activities in order to insure that our planet remains habitable
for us (Steffen et al., 2015). In the context of global human ‘development’ this has
become a paramount consideration as ‘developed’ nations must drastically decrease
Downloaded by [University of Denver - Main Library] at 17:35 31 October 2015

their ecological footprint in short-order to afford sustainable use of natural resources

and begin to reverse the negative consequences of global climate change, lift nearly two
billion people out of extreme poverty, and create a social paradigm that respects the
importance of other living beings and protection of biodiversity, of which we have lost
52 percent (not in total number of species but in total volume) in just the past 40 years
(WWF, 2014).

Myth of Infinite Economic Growth

Misguided perceptions of what constitutes human ‘progress’ has resulted in humans
living for material gain versus proper respect, appreciation, and compassion for each
other as well as all other beings. Many humans disregard or even have an intentionally
destructive attitude toward other life forms, those that provide the environments
allowing for life to exist on our planet at all. Unfounded beliefs of superiority have
fueled our disregard for the significance of our own population size that, coupled with
consumption, impose limits on human well-being. Because material gain has nearly
unanimously been used as our measure of progress and even happiness, the myth of
infinite economic growth has fueled economies that are unsustainable and on the
verge of collapse. We live on a finite planet with finite resources, therefore when every
nation on Earth measures its success on an increasing GDP we are behaving illogically
and are attempting to defy the very laws of physics by which all life must conform.
As the ecological economist Daly (1988) shared, ‘it would be wise to think of the
economy as a subsystem of an ecosystem that is energetically finite and in accord with
physical laws must stop growing’ (p. 13). However, way before this point was reached,
human overconsumption had already caused rampant destruction of global
ecosystems and some have argued, so far breached carrying capacity (the point at
which populations exceed the environments’ capacity to regenerate itself) that some
ecosystems may never return to their pre-destruction state. This misunderstanding of
ecological limits and incomplete economic models has created the paradox of
economic development causing ecological disaster that will eventually harm everyone
and possibly lead to human extinction (Yule, Fournier, & Hindmarsh, 2013) or at the
very least, drive the Earth system into a much less hospitable state for humanity
(Steffen et al., 2015).
 Social Work Education 5
Social Work and Its Struggle with Environmental Justice
Fundamental to equipping social workers with the knowledge and skills to be effective
in all areas of the human condition is the inclusion of a comprehensive understanding
of the critical importance of healthy environments, ecological boundaries, and the
environmental forces that create, contribute to, and address problems in the everyday
lives of people. Social work as a discipline has useful models and language referencing
the concept of person-in-environment, but has avoided integrating these concepts to
include more than human-centric, social consideration (Mary, 2008; Tedeschi et al.,
2013; Zapf, 2010). Kemp (2011) identifies the person-environment approach as one of
three conceptual frameworks to incorporate environmental concerns into social work.
Downloaded by [University of Denver - Main Library] at 17:35 31 October 2015

The person-in-environment approach is considered at the core of social work

education, and it ‘highlights the importance of understanding an individual and
individual behavior in light of the environmental contexts in which that person lives
and acts’ (Kondrat, 2013). Students often understand it or visualize it in terms of the
Human Ecological Theory of Bronfenbrenner (1979), a model that accounts for the
multi-level systemic factors that affect child development, or as layers of an onion,
much like the box in boxes metaphor of Germain (1978). It is well suited for helping
clinical social workers and case managers conceptualize the impact of social structures
such as families, communities, and social policies on their clients, and for how their
clients can in turn impact those social systems. However, it is strictly a psychological/
social theory, and as such, it makes a clear (and we would argue, false) delineation
between social systems and ecological systems (Zapf, 2010). What is more, it also fails
to account for the emergent properties of complex interactions that occur within
SESs—not merely the ecology of social systems social workers are already familiar
with, but with the feedback loops between social systems and the systems of the
physical environment upon which life depends (Walker & Salt, 2006).
Despite its usefulness in helping social work students appreciate the affects of larger
systems on individual functioning, when misapplied, the person-in-environment
approach makes it particularly difficult for social work students to grasp the
importance of environmental issues. Many social work students only see themselves
as case managers or clinicians working one-on-one with a client, and it can be
particularly hard to help them understand why environmental issues, especially issues
such as climate change, are a necessary and perhaps even fundamental concern for
social workers.
It has been argued that the practice of social work does not extend beyond the
bounds of the social. For example, in Kondrat’s (1999, 2003) notable constructivist
conceptualizations of the social and the personal that incorporate macro processes
more fully, the influence of and dependence upon the natural environment are not
accounted for. However, as Gray, Coates, and Hetherington (2012) illustrate, social
workers have played and continue to play an important role in the environmental
movement. It therefore is incumbent upon social work educators to help students
grasp the necessity of social workers in sustainability. Kemp (2011) outlines a range of
issues that social work struggles with in terms of the environment.
 6 E. A. Des Marais et al.
Social work students are often focused on learning to work with individuals in
their own communities, and can feel that whatever positive role they play in an
individual’s life adds to the social justice in the world. However, when they are not
taught to look beyond the bounds of their local social systems, they cannot
recognize important transnational factors that do directly affect their local client
systems. For example, in developed countries economic materialism, a value system
in which status and happiness is measured by the accumulation of material wealth,
is the de facto measure of worth (Richins, 1994). It is this very materialism,
though, that strains ecological systems to the breaking point, and creates systems of
injustice such as the rise in modern forced labor. The quest for obtaining equality
for individual clients in one locale (increasing consumption in the United States)
Downloaded by [University of Denver - Main Library] at 17:35 31 October 2015

can actually reinforce emergent feedback loops that propagate environmental

injustice.
This issue is not just relevant to social workers in the developed world, but also to
those in developing and underdeveloped countries. For example, India is on the path
to westernization and modernity, including better education, health services, and
livelihood development. The influence of globalization and technology cannot be
denied, yet it has not filtered down to all communities. Marginalized geographically
(living in remote villages), educationally (illiterate), or through lack of accessibility to
basic services (health care facilities, communications), these communities are
exploited by the same development processes that others in the country are benefiting
from. The very natural resources indigenous people globally have relied on for
generations are exploited for the consumerism of others. Industrialization and
urbanization within India creates the same exploitation that industrialization and
urbanization in Western countries have caused. For example, the Himalayan Tsunami
of 2013 created severe landslides due to poorly planned road construction and housing
development and these were the very development processes that magnified the
disaster leading to disrupted access to natural resources for local people. Mitigation of
disaster risk was weakened by the construction of multistoried housing on hills, poor
drainage along new roads, and deforestation. The promotion of tourism and other
economic interests took precedence over sustainability of resource ultilization.
After the disaster, local people suffered the worst. Except for a few local NGOs, the
issue of environmental justice was never addressed, neither by the state nor national
governments.
The above problems are intertwined, and the answer for managing all of them
together is not yet clear; this can be challenging for students. One key aspect to adding
environmental issues into the psyche of social workers is give them a model to work
from that helps them to not just conceptualize and critique these issues, but help them
identify potential solutions as well, especially those in their own locales. By providing
this model, social workers can then work towards building a more sustainable world,
both locally and internationally. Our approach is closely aligned with the globally
focused category in Kemp (2011) taxonomy of conceptual approaches to
environmental issues. In this framework, the focus is on the unjust impact of global
environmental degradation on at risk populations.
 Social Work Education 7
Reflexive Development
As a theoretical framework, we begin from Luhmann’s conceptualization of social
systems. While systems theories are often criticized for being overly focused on
homeostasis, that is, on how systems don’t change, his conceptions of reflexivity and
reflection are particularly useful for our endeavor. First, for Luhmann (1993), social
systems refer to systems of, and only of, communication. While this boundary could
appear problematic in terms of our goal of linking social and ecological systems, it is
important to note that he doesn’t argue that other systems don’t exist, but that social
systems are systems of communication—the exchange of information. A social system
is different from its environment in that it is an area of less complexity than its
Downloaded by [University of Denver - Main Library] at 17:35 31 October 2015

environment (Luhmann, 1995). A system is also different from other systems because
it has its own communicative processes (Luhmann, 1995). His theory is especially
problematic for the person-in-environment approach because it examines
communication as existing apart from the individual, thus seemingly removing the
social from the individual. While this is a drawback of the theory in terms of working
directly with clients (Gershon, 2005), it helps to refocus on social processes in and of
themselves.
Another facet of Luhmann’s perspective that is important for helping students is
that of observation. For Luhmann, a system can both engage in a “first order”
observation of itself, which he calls a reflexive process, and it can also observe these first
order processes, which he calls reflective process (Luhmann, 1993, 1995). As an
example, when social workers are engaging in their daily work processes such as
helping clients navigate their communities, they are engaging in a first order
communicative or reflexive process, but when they examine how this process interacts
with its environment or other systems, then they are engaging in a reflective process.
Coming from this standpoint, we believe that it is necessary to develop
transnational reflexive processes and that the first step in doing so is engaging in
reflection about what is happening globally. Thus, students need to first observe how
their immediate lives and the lives of their clients/client systems interact with other
systems. Once the process of reflection occurs, it is then possible to help new systems
couple together more effectively (for example, environmental professionals in over-
developed countries work with indigenous populations in under-developed countries,
or more importantly within their own) or to support the development of new
transnational systems (such as international systems of sustainable development and
environmental governance). The weakness of our approach, however, is that Luhmann
(1993, 1995) only addresses social processes and not natural environment systems, and
this needs to be reincorporated.
So, within this approach, Reflexive Development is a process of transnational social
and ecological change in which human life choices in developed countries become
responsive to the needs of developing areas and to the planet as an integrated social
ecological system. It suggests that we need new ways to do the following: (1) transmit
knowledge of how development in one area of the world affects development in
another area of the world; (2) increase sustainable use where human flourishing does
 8 E. A. Des Marais et al.
not exist; and (3) limit consumption that harms other people and other species; (4)
limit consumption that harms ecosystems; and (5) transition human thinking about
what constitutes happiness and well-being. The use of the term ‘reflexive’ is especially
important, as it is a concept that social work education already utilizes and is thus
comfortable for both students and faculty.
Our use of the term Reflexive Development is related to Pieterse (1998) usage of the
term, who argues, ‘development has been reflexive all along in that development ideas
and policies have been reactions to and reflections on the failures and limitations of
previous development practices’ (p. 368). Pieterse (1998) also argues that the process
of international development involved multiple layers of reflexivity, including local,
community, and national levels. What we suggest is that social workers need to be part
Downloaded by [University of Denver - Main Library] at 17:35 31 October 2015

of a conscious process of developing transnational reflexivity. So while, Pieterse sees

international development as a process that grows through reflexive recursion, our
perspective is that we must develop reflexive processes on a transnational level.

Reflexivity in Social Work Education

Reflexivity has been used in various social perspectives to explain the cyclic impacts of
events in a ‘cause and effect’ relationship in different contexts. Social perspective
includes the wider socio, political, economic, cultural perspective that determines the
well-being and existence of an individual, family and community. Human action is
having a purpose in relation to the possession of the action and rationalization of the
action. This process produces self-reflection. Thus, individual reflexivity is being
understood not merely as self-consciousness but as the mental monitoring of the flow
of the social life. Human action (i.e. response) is not an automated one, but rather
internally characterized acts that agents believed would have a particular outcome
(Peet & Hartwick, 2005). Reflexivity has an important role in understanding the
development paradigm and in analyzing the sequence of development in a context of
environmental sustainability and its relevance for social work practice.
Social work as a profession is based on the development of professional-self and
professional ability that inculcates values, knowledge and skills. Thus, for a social
worker, use of her/his professional self becomes pivotal for practice. In the
development of this professional-self the methods of social work teaching play the key
determinant role. Social work theory, education and practice are interconnected
with learning and self- reflection. Thus the term reflexivity for a social worker is a
combination of sensitivity, identification or self-observation and self-presentation
(Holmström & Kjaerbeck, 2007). Reflexivity in social work literature is also being used
as ‘critical reflection’. D’Cruz, Gillingham, and Melendez (2007) explained reflexivity
for social work practice in three dimensions. The first is reflexivity as an individual’s
considered response to an immediate context and making choices for further
direction. The second dimension of reflexivity is an individual’s self-critical approach.
The final dimension is about role of emotion in social work practice.
We suggest that students need to appreciate not only individual level reflexivity,
but also systems-level reflexivity, in which reflexivity is about one sub-system causing
 Social Work Education 9
and/or responding to change in another part of the system. Through a process of
gaining new knowledge about disparate parts of the global Social Ecological System,
social workers are then able to participate in the creation of just and ecological
sustainable transnational systems of development. Thus, Reflexive Development is the
nurturing of transnational systems that not only help push forward the advancement
of areas of the world struck with poverty, disease, and oppression, but that also
work within developed countries to reduce the overconsumption that induces and
propagates ecological destruction and social injustice.
We have designed activities that actively engage our own students in reflecting upon
their own place in the global ecosystem, as well as the place of their clients in relation to
other client systems. This helps students to better grasp how trying to manage social
Downloaded by [University of Denver - Main Library] at 17:35 31 October 2015

change in their own country can have unintended consequences, both social and
ecologically, in other parts of the world. However, we also try to move beyond the critical
approach, and this is where our use of Reflexive Development is particularly useful—it
gives students a conceptual framework for moving beyond critical social work and into
creative social work by helping to examine current attempts to build transnational
reflexive processes. These activities help students to examine what tools and social systems
are currently being used to engage transnationally, and what work is still to be done.
The following activities have all been developed and used in our own social
work classes. The classes are within a sustainable development concentration that
utilizes a perspective of coupled social and ecological systems. In the classes of the
concentration, students develop an understanding of Social Ecological Systems, the
human dimensions of climate change, and the role of social workers in the field of
international development.

The Three Dimensions in the Classroom

The first dimension of reflexivity refers to a social workers’ ability to gain and create
knowledge that guides life choices (D’Cruz et al., 2007). Reflexivity becomes a
competency or ability to act in the world consciously, and thus to become an active
citizen, and in our sense, a globally active citizen (Ferguson, 2003). In terms of
Reflexive Development, this means social work students need to first begin to
understand what is happening in other parts of the world and how these events are
linked to their own lives, the lives of their clients, and their communities.
Our students have a varying degree of understanding of global environmental issues,
its causes, and how it affects not just their own lives, but also those of their clients, and
people in other parts of the world. In order to help them grasp the gravity of climate
change, we begin by giving students appropriate reading such as Raworth (2012), which
utilizes the image of a doughnut as a metaphor for safe and just use of resources on a
global level. It explains both global inequality and sustainability in way that is engaging
and critical while also leaving the door open for what solutions might have to look like.
Following the presentation, small group work with students generally seems to
have them grasp the importance of sustainability, but to not yet recognize how they fit
into it. This leads to the next step, focusing on self-criticality.
 10 E. A. Des Marais et al.
Self-criticality is a key step in helping students grasp that development in their own
country, and their own consumption and child bearing, has direct implications for
individuals in other countries, as well as their own. There are a variety of online
‘footprint’ calculators that help students understand the effects their own
consumption has globally.
One of the first we used, although not focused on sustainability, helped students
tally their possessions and determine how many slaves are in the supply chain of their
possessions (www.slaveryfootprint.org). Another one, The Global Footprint
Calculator (http://footprint.wwf.org.uk), helps students calculate their carbon
footprint and then tells them how many Earths would be required if everyone
consumed as much as they did A student picks their location and answers questions
Downloaded by [University of Denver - Main Library] at 17:35 31 October 2015

about their consumption of food, goods, shelter, and mobility. Then a score is
calculated showing how many planets would be required to provide that level of usage
if everyone on the planet consumed the same way. Students can also calculate a
hypothetical client’s consumption and then recalculate for the same client after they
receive services to see how that consumptive change would affect sustainability. This
helps students understand that a narrow approach to helping individuals can actually
feed larger feedback loops of injustice. These two websites also provide methodological
notes, so there can be a discussion of research methodologies as well. After using the
calculators, we have students engage in class discussions about what this means in
terms of social justice. One discussion point that stirs discussion greatly is bringing
forward the question of whether helping one client system by shifting the burden of
injustice to someone else truly fulfilled our ethical responsibility of creating social
justice.
Moving on from the global ecosystem and also helping to bridge to the final
dimension of reflexivity, it is important to help students examine their own beliefs and
emotions around non-human forms of life. Especially if the student comes from a
strong Judeo-Christian background, it can be difficult to get past the assumption of
human primacy. Exercises here involve readings, videos, and discussions on parental
and other social and intellectual activities in other animal species and then
comparison to human activities. Useful and engaging questions that have stirred our
students involve reframing discussions such as, ‘Do chimpanzee mothers feel different
than human mothers when their children are hurt? What about dog mothers?’ This is
then followed with discussions of whether humans are that different from other
animals, and are human and other forms of life in competition or in cooperation.
To get students to engage emotionally with non-human life, creative writing
exercises either in class or at home from the perspective of nonhuman actors such as
other animals, trees, amoebas, or even bacteria is a fun way to explore life
relationships. Having the students share the stories with each other and reflect on what
it was like to take the perspective of a nonhuman can be helpful to cement the
connection.
Another exercise is to have students think about the ‘footprint’ of any other
individual of a species on Earth and guide them to realize that other species do not
have a negative footprint (unless they are an invasive, which is due to human error,
 Social Work Education 11
or all their predators have been killed off by humans) and in fact their activities
provide positive feedback loops for the health of the environment. Then ask students
to think about what our modern human activities give back to the environment
(pollution, waste, depletion). This activity is designed to inspire respect for other life
forms and a greater sense of urgency to live more in harmony with nature.
While helping students conceptualize and internalize models of translocal effects
(activities in one locality influencing the functioning of another locality) is important,
it is just as important to move to the next step as well—action. Leaving students with a
critique is only half of the battle. Helping them creatively engage with the issues that
are presented through a Reflexive Development analysis to consider solutions is also
important, and will steer them away from apathy or hopelessness.
Downloaded by [University of Denver - Main Library] at 17:35 31 October 2015

Pointing the Way Forward

Having students investigate people, organizations, and activities that support Reflexive
Development helps them to engage in moving beyond critique into solution-making.
Identifying both local and international actors is an important step to help social
workers find their place in the environmental justice movement.
Bringing in presenters who focus on urban or organic farming, sustainable design,
or city planning can help students understand the local actors involved in sustainable
initiatives. A relatively famous author, presenter, and organizer that resonates
particularly well with students is Vandana Shiva. Shiva exemplifies many social work
values in an environmental framework. Her books (e.g., Shiva, 2006) are appealing
and her presentations (many of which are available on YouTube) are thoughtful and
engaging.
Service learning activities also help students become involved. Local river clean ups,
bird counts, urban gardens, and even volunteering with larger groups such as World
Wildlife Fund, Audubon, or Greenpeace, can be great opportunities to help students
get direct experience with supporting environmental justice. Also, these organizations
rarely get to interact with people with the community and systems skills that social
workers possess, therefore the benefits will surely be mutual.
Instilling a stronger understanding of what sustainability is and looks like is also
constructive. Sustainability doesn’t mean zero growth, but rather new ways of thinking
about growth, about qualitative growth, not physical expansion of the human machine
(Meadows et al., 2004). A sustainable society would consider material goods as a tool,
but not a perpetual mandate and begin to discriminate among kinds of growth and
purposes for growth. It would also consider the true costs of any kind of growth, who
would actually benefit how long it would last and whether that growth could be
accommodated by the sources and pollution sinks of Earth. Lastly, it would consider
types of positive social growth that would include deeper empathy with each other,
Earth and other beings, quality time spent with family and friends in meaningful
activities, and access to meaningful work and play that supports society and is not just
a drain such as the economic machine and policies now dominant worldwide. When
teaching our students about these issues, they often go through a natural cycle of
 12 E. A. Des Marais et al.
denial, then guilt, then thoughts about how to make personal and professional
changes, through to hope and determination to be a part of the challenge and
adventure being presented to their generation. Our guidance, love and support is
paramount.
Finally, to help grasp the transnational approaches to environmental justice, we help
students research a variety of topics. Students look for smartphone apps such as the
Environmental Justice Participatory app or the How is the Water? that support
environmental justice. Some have also joined the Slow Food and Slow Fashion
movements. They can also examine online attempts to build transnational civil society
through websites such as Avaaz and CIVICUS. New payment methods such, as Bitcoin
(https://bitcoin.org/en/) that bypass traditional banking are another new area of
Downloaded by [University of Denver - Main Library] at 17:35 31 October 2015

transnational connection. Students can also examine organizations of international

governance such as the United Nations Development Program, the Sustainable
Development Solutions Network, and the United Nations Office of Danger Risk
Reduction. Examining their job boards can help students understand how their own
skill sets can fit into the field.

Conclusion
Models are simplifications of the real world that help us to better analyze and act upon
that world (Meadows, 2008). Reflexive Development is a model that helps social
workers to conceptualize, analyze, and act upon global social ecological systems in a
way that supports environmental justice as well as more traditional sustainable
development. Since the consumption of resources in one locality is tied to issues of
justice in other locales (translocality), these translocal systems must be taken into
account when social workers are acting to support social and environmental justice.
Far from being a simple matter of helping developing areas of the world reach the
economic level of the developed nations, it is necessary to change patterns of
overdevelopment in the developed countries to also support sustainability. Thus,
Reflexive Development recognizes that there is a dual process of supporting
development and mitigating overdevelopment. By helping social work students better
understand how their own participation and modeling is a necessary component of
sustainability social work can play its role in supporting environmental justice.
While the purpose of this paper is to present a model for helping social work
students grasp the importance of transnational networks that link localities and then
act on them, local issues themselves should not be forgotten. In fact, getting students
involved in local environmental issues will build the bridge to understanding larger
global processes.
For example, asking students to think about the full impact of the development of
indoor plumbing that then depletes a local aquifer shows students that things we take
for granted and believe are necessary for well-being can have dangerous impacts and
need to be considered wisely. Then linking this localized water issue to transnational
issues, such as water wars in Africa, helps students appreciate that their local struggles
also have wider implications in the world. Another example is the building of an oil
 Social Work Education 13
pipeline in the name of national security, but that the pipeline polluting the water and
soil impacts the people and other animals that live along the route. These issues are far
from easy to resolve, but getting social workers at these tables, asking the hard
questions, and above all advocating for the rights and well being of all impacted will
surely bring about a more just and healthy human presence on Earth.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Downloaded by [University of Denver - Main Library] at 17:35 31 October 2015

References
Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of
social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society, 9, 18 –34.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American
Psychologist, 34, 844– 850. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.844
Brundtland Commission. (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
D’Cruz, H., Gillingham, P., & Melendez, S. (2007). Reflexivity, its meanings and relevance for social
work: A critical review of the literature. British Journal of Social Work, 37, 73– 90. doi:10.1093/
bjsw/bcl001
Daly, H. E. (1988). Beyond growth. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Ferguson, H. (2003). Welfare, social exclusion and reflexivity: The case of child and woman
protection. Journal of Social Policy, 32, 199– 216. doi:10.1017/S0047279402006967
Germain, C. B. (1973). An ecological perspective in casework practice. Social Casework, 54, 323– 330.
Germain, C. B. (1978). General-systems theory and ego psychology: An ecological perspective. Social
Service Review, 52, 535– 550. doi:10.1086/643676
Gershon, I. (2005). Seeing like a system: Luhmann for anthropologists. Anthropological Theory, 5,
99– 116. doi:10.1177/1463499605053993
Global Humanitarian Forum. (2009). Human impact report: Climate change—The anatomy of a silent
crisis. Geneva: Author.
Gray, M., Coates, J., & Hetherington, T. (Eds.). (2012). Environmental social work. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Holmström, S., & Kjaerbeck, S. (2007). The reflective paradigm, in theory and practice- an inter
disciplinary practice. In Conference legitimacy in a changing world. Roskilde: Roskilde
University. Retrieved from udar.ruc.dk/bitstream/../The_reflective_paradigm__konferencear-
tikel.d.
Kemp, S. P. (2011). Recentring environment in social work practice: Necessity, opportunity,
challenge. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 1198 –1210. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr119
Kondrat, M. E. (1999). Who is the “self ” in self-aware: Professional self-awareness from a critical
theory perspective. Social Service Review, 73, 451– 477.
Kondrat, M. E. (2003). Actor-centered social work: Re-visioning “person-in-environment” through a
critical theory lens. Social Work, 47, 435– 448.
Kondrat, M. (2013, June 11). Person-in-environment. Encyclopedia of Social Work. Retrieved from
http://socialwork.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.001.0001/acrefore-
9780199975839-e-285
Lehmann, P., & Coady, N. (2001). Theoretical perspectives for direct social work practice: A generalist-
eclectic approach. New York, NY: Springer.
Luhmann, N. (1993). Risk: A sociological theory. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
 14 E. A. Des Marais et al.
Manfredo, M. J., Vaske, J. J., Rechkemmer, A., & Duke, E. A. (2014). Understanding society and
natural resources: Forging new strands of integration across the social sciences. New York, NY:
Springer Open.
Mary, N. L. (2008). Social work in a sustainable world. Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.
McKinnon, J. (2008). Exploring the nexus between social work and the environment. Australian
Social Work, 61, 256– 268. doi:10.1080/03124070802178275
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green
Publishing.
Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to growth: The 30-year update. White River
Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Miley, K. K., O’Melia, M., & DuBois, B. (2004). Generalist social work practice: An empowering
approach (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Downloaded by [University of Denver - Main Library] at 17:35 31 October 2015

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005a). Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis.
Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005b). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Peet, R., & Hartwick, E. (2005). Theories of development. New Delhi: Rawat Publication. (Indian
Reprint).
Pieterse, J. N. (1998). My paradigm or yours? Alternative development, post-development, reflexive
development. Development and Change, 29, 343– 373.
Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam
Discussion Papers. Retrieved from http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/dp-a-
safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-130212-en.pdf
Richins, M. L. (1994). Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21, 504– 521. doi:10.1086/209414
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., . . . Foley, J. A. (2009).
A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472– 475. doi:10.1038/461472a
Sheafor, B. W., & Horejsi, C. R. (2006). Techniques and guidelines for social work practice (7th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Shiva, V. (2006). Earth democracy: Justice, sustainability and peace. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., . . . Sörlin, S.
(2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 34.
doi:10.1126/science.1259855.
Tedeschi, P, Bexell, S. M., & Nesmith, J. (2013). Conservation social work: The interconnectedness of
biodiversity health and human resilience. In M. Bekoff (Ed.), Ignoring nature no more: The case
for compassionate conservation (pp. 223– 235). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
WWF. (2014). Living planet report 2014: Species and spaces, people and places. Gland: Author.
Yelaja, S. A. (1985). Concepts of social work practice. In S. A. Yelaja (Ed.), An introduction to social
work practice in Canada. Scarborough, ON: Prentice Hall.
Yule, J. V., Fournier, R. J., & Hindmarsh, P. L. (2013). Biodiversity, extinction, and humanity’s future:
The ecological and evolutionary consequences of human population and resource use.
Humanities, 2, 147– 159.
Zapf, M. K. (2010). Social work and the environment: Understanding people and place. Critical
Social Work, 11, 30– 46.