This paper charts a
narrative journey of a partnership between two
people as well as the intellectual journey of their
ideas . Both narratives move in parallel taking up
the issues of engaging in relationships across the
boundaries of social conflict. The discussion
strives to illumine a curriculum for social justice
more than cultural competence and to accept the
complexities of the multiple group memberships that
each of us experience.
The topographical ideas of
Kurt Lewin (1948) may provide a useful map of the
terrain of group identity and membership. First, he
pictures an individual existing within the context
of multiple group memberships e.g. gender,
cultural, physical disability, religion etc. Some
of these memberships are voluntary-- in that a
person may choose to identify herself as a member
some involuntary-- in that she is identified by
others as a member. Second, the group memberships
that will have the most influence on a person's
life are those where her common fate lies with the
group. For African Americans or European Jews fifty
years ago the individual fate of a group member was
inextricably tied to the fate of the group as a
whole on an involuntary basis except for those who
could hide or pass. This is also true today in the
gay community where those who "come out" find
themselves in a similar position of sharing a
common fate.
Lewin also points out that
groups should be viewed in the context of social
conflict. Social conflict means here that majority
and minority form a social context where the
tensions between groups influence individual
perceptions of self and other and behavior.
Therefore he concludes that our understanding of
individual and group issues can be enhanced by
attempts to understand the forces exerted by the
context of social conflict on both groups. This
then guides our journey- an externalized discourse
and reflective exploration of individual
experiences of group membership in the context of
social conflict. Cultural, gender and racial issues
and individual identity and experience are
inextricably intertwined, but we separate them here
to reflect on how they are woven together.
The first such distinction
we make is to notice that one narrative direction
is individual-- the story that applies to the
history and psychology of a person and that another
narrative resides in the collective history and
sociology of a group and its relations with other
groups.
John and
Dean
In 1991, Dean Lobovits, a
Jewish man, who was 41 years old, had been teaching
family therapy for six years at John F. Kennedy
University in Orinda California. At that time John
Prowell, an African American man, who was 57 years
old and had graduated from the same University
three years previously, was interested in joining
the family therapy faculty. Dean invited John to
join him as a teaching assistant with the goal that
John become a core faculty member in this subject
area. This collaboration began an "Unexpected
Journey" down the road of diversity.
Over the last four years
our conversations have transformed our teaching
methods, course materials, and clinical practice.
These changes have been part of our vision for the
institution to recognize diversity and foster
inclusion at all levels. We have been inspired by
the work of The Family Centre (Tamasese &
Waldegrave, 1993, Tapping, 1993, Waldegrave, 1990,
1991, 1992,) to seek out and engage in partnership
across boundaries of race, class, gender, etc. Why
did we form such a partnership? One reason was to
establish a relationship that would provide
accountability for our activities with members of
the group our partner belongs to, such as Dean's
work with African American students and clients or
John's work with Caucasian and Jewish clients and
students. One important question that might be
raised is why would we be motivated to engage the
students and clients of each others racial and
ethnic groups? Social responsibility and justice,
professional competence, personal enrichment and
curiosity immediately come to mind.
We did not anticipate
becoming culturally competent, rather we focused on
accountability and social justice issues. One such
element, that is not often focused on, but that was
influential for us, we like to call access. What
constrains, for example, a person of color from
accessing the status, power, and wealth of the
dominant culture? We asked that question about our
system at the University where we both were faculty
members. Outwardly it appeared as if the faculty
and the students were Caucasian, but we knew that
there were many differences beside color of the
skin that were not being acknowledged. We
hypothesized that such mono-cultural perceptions
themselves formed something of a stumbling block to
access.
In addition to the rarity
of persons of color in the student body and the
faculty, we knew this because other differences
were being discussed such as religion,
homosexuality, gender, age, and disabilities. These
discussions however took place primarily in a
"Cross Cultural" class and were rarely integrated
into the general classes and practicum experiences
that formed the clinical counseling program.
Faculty members from historical minority groups
formed the majority of Cross Cultural class
instructors but were not significantly represented
in any other area of the curriculum. We also
noticed that the effect of the current curriculum
was to emphasize cultural competence for novice
practitioners but we did not see the curriculum or
the institution as able to articulate the social
justice issues implied by the lack of access for
persons of color to other areas and the segregation
of diversity issues into specific
classes.
We conceived of team
teaching a class that was not a Cross Cultural
class, (The course was one on the basics of Family
Therapy) that integrated racial and gender
differences into the curriculum. We hoped that such
an integrated syllabus would have an impact on the
students but we did not anticipate the striking
effect exposing the students to the cross-racial
partnership itself. One effect of this exposure was
expected that of honoring the diversity and
differences between us as individuals. The other
effect was less expected-- that of bridging
differences. For us, honoring differences means
preserving and enhancing our cultural differences
and identity. Bridging differences means forming a
bond that spans the historical injustices, fears,
suspicions, and distrust that separate us without
the loss of our unique identities.
The dynamic tension of
these two dimensions might be exemplified in a
macro view by an important political debate in
1994. In his budget, President Clinton wanted to
fund a youth corps, where young people from
different racial backgrounds would be exposed to
each other by doing socially worthwhile work
projects. The African American Congressional Caucus
had concerns about resources being devoted to such
a program. Would the money be drawn from programs
like the Pell Grant that assists many young African
Americans in their college education. In other
words would making integration (bridging
differences) a priority reduce efforts at
addressing historical inequity (honoring
differences)? When we exposed our partnership to
the students, we asked ourselves which side of this
dichotomy we would be seen as supporting? Which
should we support in our process? We anticipated
based on our past experiences that this type of
either/or question could immobilize our efforts so
we sought a both/and discourse to replace it.
We determined that we
should support the students' ability to choose for
themselves whether their experience should be
honoring difference or bridging difference. We saw
the development of an environment of psychological
safety as the first step toward accomplishing this.
First we tried to examine what constrained such an
environment from developing and our perception of
that ecology forms the first half of this paper. As
such an environment did develop in our classroom
and consulting rooms we began to articulate the
issue of exposing one's differences. We borrowed
the gay expression of "coming out" to talk about
this. How could we create an environment where a
student could choose to come out with their
different group memberships, cultures, values,
sexual orientation etc. or choose to raise issues
of access to the resources of the majority culture?
We understood this as an "empowerment" issue. For
us empowerment means reducing the constraints
social conflict exerts on a given choice. We
identified along with our students and our clients,
the constraints that we could externalize as
operating in the classroom or therapeutic
environment or in any environment where there is a
person or persons in a hierarchical position who
are trying to give help or knowledge to another
person or persons in a lower hierarchical position.
The first constraint to
choice about "coming out" occurs if the person who
is the hierarchical position of helper or teacher
does not raise the issues of difference. The burden
is then placed on the person in the lower
hierarchical position to remain silent and thus
have difference marginalized by that silence or to
speak out and carry the commensurate risks of
exposure without the protections granted to the
helper or teacher by their hierarchical
positioning.
When the teacher or
therapist raises issues of difference this
constraint is removed and the client or student can
chose to remain silent or "come out". They can then
attend to issues of cultural identity or access
according to their personal preference. The
restoration of this choice by the action of the
teacher or therapist is then considered
"empowering". Once differences are in circulation
then the choice of bridging such differences in a
way that does not disqualify them becomes
available.
The rest of the paper is
devoted to articulating the communication issues
raised by a social justice orientation. First we
take up the experience of the members of groups
that have been historically dominated by the
majority culture. We then take up the issues of the
dominant group. Along the way we try to articulate
the communication impasse between dominated and
dominant group members in the context of social
conflict. Finally we try and articulate a
methodology for spanning such impasses.
The
issues and binds of a dominated
group
When John and Dean taught
their first class together they asked the students
for their reaction to this state of affairs
described above. Their responses were extremely
enlightening. Students of color stated that they
were placed in many binds. Since the difference of
skin color is visible, when the rare discussion of
cultural difference had occurred, they were
sometimes asked by the Caucasian instructor to
discuss their cultural experiences. This was
upsetting to them and placed them in the binds
referred to above. This was that they did not want
to represent their group in an over simplified
manner or be seen as a representative of their
group unless they chose to or felt qualified to do
so and in these situations the choice seemed to be
taken away from them.
Another bind was that they
did not want to be seen as the only ones who were
"different". After all, there were people with
differences who could "pass" who were not put in
this position and there were people with observable
differences like "physical disabilities" that were
not "seen" as "different"! Yet another bind was
that they wanted cultural differences acknowledged
by those in power (the faculty) and they did not
want to raise these issues in class after class.
They did not want this role because they felt they
may be typecast as "trouble makers" or would be
described as having "psychological issues" in the
class evaluations.
Another bind was that they
wanted the choice to not identify themselves as
anything but training therapists like everyone
else. Yet if they did this they would have no forum
to discuss how they were going to access the
resources of the majority culture and achieve
professional success. This issue calls to mind an
African American colleague who had wryly commented
at a conference devoted to cross cultural issues;
"Where's the workshop on how black therapists go
about establishing their practices in Beverly
Hills?" or gay colleagues who confided that they
did not want to "come out" in a professional group
because they would no longer be referred straight
clients. Another example of the type of issue which
cannot be discussed if such differences remain
invisible for a minority therapist, is exemplified
by the complaints heard from Latino and African
American therapists about members of their cultural
group consistently expect them to work for reduced
or no fees in private practice or their guilt about
leaving agency work to establish a more lucrative
private practice.
Our understanding of these
binds has been greatly enhanced by the students
comments about them. When the students of color
spoke up about these binds in class three Gay
students "came out" in class and a light skinned
Latino student also identified himself. In our
class of a dozen students, where three students
could be identified as members of a minority group
via skin color, we now had seven students total who
were identifying themselves as members of minority
groups that have histories of domination and
injustice by the majority group in the U.S. We
asked ourselves why these students were feeling
able to risk identifying themselves in our class?
This began our collaborative research effort to
understand the constraints that reduce the
likelihood that such differences will be exposed in
such a clinical or educational
situation.
Stories
of pain
A major communication
issue to be pursued is to establish a
psychologically safe forum to explore the pain that
results from the current or historical experiences
of injustices perpetrated on one's person and/or
one's group. We define such a communication issue
as one where a legacy and current practices of
injustice and differential privilege requires a
different hermeneutic (system or method of
interpretation) of inter-group discourse for
survival and adaptation for such a (the dominated)
group. Conversely the members from the dominant
group develop a different hermeneutic for
understanding inter-group discourse based on their
individual experience of adaptation and survival
but not, as Lewin (1948) points out, on the
inextricability of their common fate at the hands
of a more powerful majority group. Tamasesee and
Waldegrave (1993) have named the recounting of such
experiences by members of the dominated group as
stories of pain and they hypothesize that the
dominant group tends to individualize such
collective discourse.
We hypothesize that if the
constraints to "coming out" are removed for the
dominated group the expression of both individual
and collective pain at the hands of the majority
group will be fundamentally important, if not the
first order of business. We discuss the issues and
binds raised for both groups in such a discourse
below. Here we would like to take up the special
situation where the teacher or therapist who
initiates an inter-group discourse is from a
dominant cultural group and who may have also had a
personal or group history of perpetrating injustice
on the minority group. We contend that a cross
group partnership and the exposure of the workings
of such a partnership may help address the
difficulties raised in this situation.
First let us try to
articulate the bind. If the person in the
hierarchically supported position of teacher or
therapist is a member of a dominant culture as
well, the persons in the learner or helpee position
who are not in the dominant culture are constrained
in the following manner. Should these persons or
person risk raising the extremely important issues
of discrimination and racism where the person in
power is of the dominant cultural group that
perpetrated this type of injustice? Kiwi Tamasese
has articulated the healing nature of sharing
stories of personal and collective pain. As we
describe below, persons from a group with history
of domination over another group can not lead the
way in disclosures such as this without creating
confusion for those in the dominated group.
A person from a dominated
group that has suffered injustice must maintain
what Archie Smith Jr. (personal communication,
October 1994) has characterized an hermeneutic of
suspicion for his or her own protection. Whether
it's slavery or the holocaust, history teaches
members of dominated groups that exposure of the
pain of injustice may be punishable by death or
economic deprivation. Harry Edwards points out that
the world of sports reflects the evolution of these
issues for young African Americans, Tommy Smith and
Juan Carlos defied the life threatening constraint
with their black power salute more than twenty
years ago, similarly Neon Deon and Charles Barkley
defy the economic sanctions today. Nonetheless
adaptive mechanisms are taught to members of
dominated groups from an early age. If the dominant
group therapist or teacher is not accountable to a
member of the dominated group she or he may become
confused or alarmed about such "adaptive suspicion"
(American Psychological Association, 1991). The
client or student may also be uncertain about his
or her own judgment when exposing such pain.
The choice of sharing a
story of such pain is constrained further when the
client or student is put in the high risk position
of initiating exposure. Thus when a partnership is
forged between dominant and a dominated group
members in a hierarchically supported positions
such as teachers or therapists, the partnership
itself can take the initiative around such
disclosures. We call the exposure of such a process
transparency after David Epston (Freeman &
Lobovits, 1993, White, 1991). We are not just
self-disclosing our personal pain about suffering
injustice or perpetration of injustice by ourselves
or our group. We are exposing the workings of
individualizing the collective discourse and the
hermeneutic of suspicion by revealing their
operations in our relationship. This then empowers
the student or client to choose whether to come out
not only about the personal and collective pain of
racism but the operations of the hermeneutic of
suspicion or individualizing the collective
discourse in her or his history, relationships and
psyche. Only by denying the lessons of history and
the commensurate risk of exposure could we ignore
the constraints on those from the dominated group
in "coming out" about their individual and
collective pain about racism and injustice in a way
that may be productive and healing.
The complexity of this
situation is increased because experiences of
discrimination are both personal and just as
importantly collective and historical. If they are
treated or understood primarily as individual and
psychological, (as they may be an the therapeutic
milieu) then the collective pain and historical
lessons are marginalized. If they are treated or
understood primarily as historical and collective
then the individual psychological pain may be
unexplored. The adept discrimination of these
factors is fundamentally necessary in the
educational or therapeutic situation. How is a
person who is a member of a dominant culture who
may have historically or personally (inadvertently
or intentionally) perpetrated such injustice to
make such a discrimination. This is where the
accountability provided by the partnership comes
into play. Accountability here means a therapeutic
insight into what is a personal and what is a
collective or historical issue can best be made by
a teacher or therapist who is also a member of the
dominated group or if they are made by the dominant
group teacher or therapist, then it is an
imperative that they be evaluated by her or his
partner. This is preferable because the dominant
group member cannot develop the cultural competence
to make such a distinction without intensive
linguistic immersion, developing significant
intimate relationships with members of a given
culture and experience within an isolated
geographic community. This difficulty in attaining
cultural competence makes methods that emphasize
social justice such as accountability and caucusing
fundamentally important skills.
Accountability
Accountability as we use
it in this paper is a term developed by The Family
Centre of Lower Hutt New Zealand, (Tamasesee &
Waldegrave1993, Waldegrave, 1990) to describe a
social justice method where the activities of a
dominant group individual with a dominated group or
individual are monitored by those with cultural
competence within the dominated group or where
members of a dominated group are monitored by other
members of their own group. Usually this form of
accountability system is already in place in such
groups e.g. a council of elders. Accountability has
also been used with gender issues. Caucusing is a
term used by The Family Centre (Tamasesee &
Waldegrave, 1993) to describe a collective
communication method where members of dominant and
dominated groups meet separately and then
communicate with each other as groups through
spokespersons, rather than solely as individuals so
that collective discourses can be fostered and
clearly distinguished from those that are
individualized.
Tables 1-4
Table 1. takes up some of
the binds for those in the dominated group. The
list is intended to spur thinking about these
issues, it is not intended to be
comprehensive.
TABLE
1. BINDS FOR THE DOMINATED GROUP
Dichotomy A:
Identity vs. assimilation
Description:
Cultural identity/ uniqueness vs.
integrated/unified society
Ideology:
English only, melting pot, integration, no
difference
Psychological
Effect: Ambivalent identity, self hate-other
hate
Communication
Impasse: Rhetorical assumptions intensify,
linguistic simplification
Dichotomy B:
Collective resources and differences vs.
individual comparisons and expectations
Description:
Autonomy/self-reliance vs. historical facts of
resource distribution and differential
opportunity
Ideology: Pull
up by bootstraps, Individual initiative,
American Dream, reverse
discrimination
Psychological
Effect: Depression, anger
Communication
Impasse: Effects of linguistic domination
are seen as language deficits, linguistic
elitism
Dichotomy C:
Access to the resources of the dominant
group vs. duty to dominated group
Description:
Conflict over making it and assimilating,
abandoning those still in the struggle
Ideology: Being
an example, Role Model
Psychological
Effect: Guilt, self doubt
Communication
Impasse: Linguistic assimilation is seen as
equality
Dichotomy
E: Individual exposure vs. group
historical risk of imprisonment and/or
death
Description:
Exposing anger and protest has historically
resulted in punishment or death
Ideology:
Protesters become martyrs
Psychological
Effect: Anger, pain and protest are
immature, audacious, manipulative, disruptive or
dangerous
Communication
Impasse: Hermeneutic of suspicion.
Linguistic coding is required to hide
unacceptable or dangerous feelings
Dichotomy
F: Stories of collective pain vs.
individualizing response
Description:
Historical lessons of subjugation should be
ignored in "safe" or "fair" situations
Ideology:
Liberalism, psychologizing e.g. transference,
Psychological Effect: Double
consciousness
Communication
Impasse: Collective complaints are
linguistically disqualified as individual
differences
The
issues and binds of the dominant
group
When the constraints on
dominated cultural group members were lessened in
our classes, the stories of pain began to be told
by students of color, different sexual preference,
and by women (when gender issues were addressed) we
began to reflect on the experiences of dominant
group members as well. Some dominant group students
expressed their pain as members of other oppressed
sub-groups, such as religious groups, physical
disabilities etc. Sometimes they expressed the pain
of being neglected by classroom discourse that
focused primarily on cultural and gender issues.
Others felt silenced by the strong emotions of the
dominated group members, sometimes this extended to
painful accounts of their own experiences of
reverse discrimination. For example, the
presentation of gender issues in class would
sometimes invite accounts by some of the men of
"male bashing" taking place in classroom
discussions of feminist ideas and therapeutic
practices.
Dominant group members
seemed confused when they encountered the stories
of pain from members of the dominated group. They
reported feelings of being betrayed by the anger
expressed by those who were previously silent,
seeing the dominated group member's previous
silence as dishonest or deceptive instead of
adaptive. They perceived injustice as an individual
psychological experience and felt that they were
being objectified by the projections of the
minority group members. Some dominant group members
did not perceive any individual benefit from the
privileges that their group membership supposedly
gave them. We wonder whether this invisibility of
privilege leads to dominant group beliefs and fears
of reverse discrimination and competition with
minority group members for "victim" status. Some
dominant group members expressed their fears about
making mistakes in conversation or showing a hidden
bias that would provoke the anger of the dominated
group or they protested in anger that they are
forced to be fearful about this or that the "rules
for politically correct speech were being made as
the conversation went along.".
These fears and binds that
constrain the communication of the dominant group
are just as important, and challenging to make
visible and articulate as the binds of the
dominated group. We must do so in order to move
through the communication impasses inherent to the
context of social conflict in which we all live. As
stated above the complexities of multi-group
membership make distinctions difficult, but make
them we must if we are to move forward. Lewin's
definition of dominated group membership was
discussed previously, that being that one is seen
by the majority as a member of the group to which
one's fate is inextricably connected. We use this
definition to examine the psychological dimension
of the dominant group individual whose identity is
challenged by collective discourse about
difference. Many members of a majority group hold
multi-group memberships, some dominating (e.g.
male, professional, middle-income), and some
dominated (e.g. African American, female, Jewish).
In spite of this the majority group member may also
hold a unified assumption about her group identity
and her sense of self to which she feel her
psychological fate is inextricably bound.
Kenneth Gergen (1991) has
challenged the assumption of a unified self in his
work entitled The Saturated Self where he
articulates the diversity of group identities a
person may experience and which persist across
time. For example, we may have an identity with a
professional group that we see only once a year at
a conference, yet if we receive a phone call in the
midst of diapering our baby (being immersed in the
identity of caretaker at the moment), we can resume
our professional identity very quickly. Gergen
challenges the notion that these identities are
unified into a solitary self, as a historical, and
possibly anachronistic construct and one that is
the cause of much stress in our instant
communication environment and increasingly complex
lives. (As any parent who has taken a professional
call in the midst of caretaking well
knows!)
Lewin (1948) posited that
group membership is the "ground" of identity as
complex as it may be. He also hypothesized that the
psychological awareness of the complexity of
identity is preferable to suppressing or excluding
such information. He used the example of the
destabilization and decompensation of an adolescent
who suddenly finds out she is adopted. He contrasts
this case with the resiliency of another adolescent
who is told in early childhood that she was chosen
by their parents and who is teased by her peers
about it during puberty and adolescence. He deduced
that the destabilization of the ground of identity
is what led to the former adolescent's
decompensation not the fact of adoption. Conversely
resiliency was gained by the other adolescent when
the complexity of her identity was considered a
fact of life from early age.
We question whether the
ground of a unified identity is subject to an
earthquake when it is challenged by the
complexities of both multi-group membership and the
power relationships raised in inter-group
discourse. For example, a man may define himself as
an individual. In the discourse of diversity and
historical iniquity this definition is
deconstructed to male, European descent, Christian,
middle class socio-economic group etc. This
particular man may experience this deconstruction
of his group memberships as a threat to his unified
identity and sense of self. In rhetorical terms,
his individual experience of relative power to
others in his group is now defined as marginal and
the power relations between his group and groups
previously excluded from his discourses about power
(when he referred to his group) are now
significant. He may find his fate inextricably
bound with a group of which he previously did not
define himself as a member.
The groups he is now being
defined as a member of, did not seem to him to
bestow him any special privilege previously but now
they are defined as powerful in terms of status,
opportunity and privileges relative to other
economic, cultural and gender groups. This occurs
because he now finds himself hearing the stories of
pain and exclusion that were previously constrained
by fear of death or loss of privilege and were thus
a segregated discourse.
In addition to
destabilizing a dominant group member's previously
unified sense of identity, he or she will also find
that inter-group discourse and rhetoric requires
her or his competency to make new distinctions in a
once familiar linguistic and rhetorical domain. For
example, a dominant group member in the 1990's in
America, may be familiar with the dominated group
discourse of inclusion or the discourse of unique
identity, access to resources, but not the
discourse of complex group membership or historical
marginalization. As the dominated group continually
evolves in its discourses a dominant group member
may experience that evolution as a continual loss
of linguistic competence, as competitive,
unnecessarily complex or as attacking or making her
wrong.
Educators and therapists
may be particularly prone to feeling that their
efforts to make institutional or individual change,
deepen understanding, or find harmony are being
rejected and disqualified by the pain expressed by
the dominated group. The educator or therapist may
then experience hopelessness, become silent due to
fear of offending, take collective protests of the
dominated groups as individual attacks or voice
anger and protest of linguistic constraints as the
"tyranny of political correctness".
Occasionally dominant
group members may interpret their individual
alienation as due to the lack of the cohesion and
collective experience of their own group. They see
themselves as divorced from their own family or
group identification and seek to be adopted by the
culture and spirituality of a dominated group. They
may hold romantic notions of the nobility of such
groups and often leave their adopted group in
disappointment when its true humanity and
complexity arises. Since they carry the
individualizing perceptions of Western culture they
separate what is fundamentally integrated and
collective in their adoptive culture. An example of
this might be viewing art or spirituality as
separate from the everyday experience of living in
a the culture or sub-culture. Thus they colonize
the language, customs, and spirituality of such
groups by seeing them as "pure" manifestations of
the indigenous wisdom of the culture and split off
the actual social and political realities of its
members-- sometimes to the extent of seeing
themselves as more traditionally "pure" than the
"assimilated" members of the group
itself!
Table 2. is a sketch of
some of the binds that face the dominant
group.
Table
2. BINDS FOR THE DOMINANT GROUP
Dichotomy A:
Dominant cultural identity vs. multicultural
complexity, gender issues
Description:
Assumptions of unified identity/belonging
challenged by complexities of multi-group
membership, and multi-racial identity
Ideology:
Conservatism, anti-political correctness,
tyranny of minorities
Psychological
Effect: Fear of destabilization of unified
identity
Communication
Imapsse: Linguistic poverty,
un-challengeable rhetorical
assumptions
Dichotomy B:
Group history of perpetrating bias, prejudice or
discrimination vs. individual level of bias or
prejudice
Description:
Difficulty discriminating personal bias from the
effects of historical racism or vice versa
Ideology:
Liberalism, political correctness, moral
relativism
Psychological
Effect: Confusion, guilt, betrayal
Communication
Impasse: Linguistic obfuscation or
paralysis
Dichotomy C:
Privilege of dominant group membership vs.
individual experience of deprivation/oppression
Description:
Differential treatment on the basis dominant
group membership is not experienced as an
individual advantage, complexities of multiple
and voluntary group memberships, passing
Ideology:
Injustice is individual only, everyone has been
hurt, psychological effects over historical
injustice,
Psychological
Effect: Individual guilt for anger, hurt
feelings, competition over victim status
Communication
Impasse: Personalization subsumes collective
narratives
Dichotomy
D: Individual change efforts vs.
long standing effects of social conflict
Description:
Efforts to change dominant institution met with
anger and suspicion by dominated groups
Ideology:
Dominated groups should be thankful/
receptive/cooperative with institutional efforts
Psychological
Effect: Despair, paralysis, of dominant
group members and institution
Communication
Impasse: Speaking is hopeless/
dangerous
Dichotomy E:
Individual alienation vs. romantic notions
of communal or collective based culture
Description:
Patronizing dominated group, Colonizing
dominated group identity, religion, activities
Ideology:
Individual responsibility will address
collective guilt Romantic/idealized other,
spirituality can be separated from the socio-
political
Psychological
Effect: Lack of cultural identity, self
hateCommunication Impass: Linguistic and narrative
colonization
A
vicious cycle of social conflict:
Paralysis-Individualizing-Patronizing/anger
In order to explicate the
impasse that occurs in inter-group communication we
have taken three issues raised by Tamasesee &
Waldegrave (1993) and tried to understand them as a
downward spiraling cycle of behavior/perception,
akin to the way therapists understand the "cycle of
violence". We see this cycle supported by the
socio-political constraints we have been attempting
to describe for both groups and we follow this
discussion of a "vicious" cycle with a proposal for
a "virtuous" one.
When members of dominated
groups begins to express protest, anger and pain
over and individual and collective injustice and
dominant group members turn to silence, anger or
patronizing, the emotional temperature of both
parties in a discourse escalate. The dominant group
member's sense of unified identity may be
challenged. The context of social conflict exerts
an influence on persons form the dominant group who
are trying to "help" and the dominated group who is
now seen as "needing help.". Individuals often
become paralyzed in their efforts or the
institutions in which they work become paralyzed in
its efforts. There will be an experience within of
personal frustration or hopelessness or
interpersonally of group impasse. An individual
from the dominant group may be immobilized by
personal guilt, awkwardness, uncertainty, and may
maintain that they are personally innocent of bias
or filled with regret about past bias. Waldegrave
and Tamasese identify this an "individualizing"
response to the "collective" pain being expressed
by the dominated group or groups.
These expression of these
feelings may be seen as inappropriate and the
response of further anger from the dominated group
may be feared. As white teenagers often take on the
styles, music and talk of African American teens,
dominant group therapist may take on the causes of
dominated group (for them instead of with them) in
a patronizing manner. Conversely, some educators/
therapists will express feelings of anger about
their perception that they are being held as
responsible for the iniquities suffered by the
dominated group. They may also compete with the
dominated group for victim status based on their
multi-group membership. Ideas like reverse
discrimination are manifestations of the perception
that the dominated group stories of pain are
manipulative and unfairly competitive. They may
also perceive the dominated group as projecting
their own self-hatred, insecurity, or ambivalent
identity on then thus pathologizing the minority
group. The dominated group experiences any of these
responses as diffusing or disqualifying their
individual and collective experiences of injustice.
This impasse will lead the cycle back to the
initial state of paralysis and inaction, spiral
downward into destructive anger and resentment or
result in "band aid" actions.
Table 3. is an attempt to
sketch the steps of this viscous cycle
TABLE
3. STEPS IN A VICIOUS CYCLE OF INTER-GROUP
IMPASSE
Step
A: Paralysis
Linguistic
Impasse: Conflicting hermeneutics,
segregated discourse
Cognitive State:
Confusion/ betrayal, cognitive dissonance
Philosophical
Stance: Fatalism
Cultural
Conflict: Assumptions and rhetoric of
universal identity and experience challenged
Psychological
Conflict: Identity destabilization, guilt
Interpersonal
Conflict: Impasse, segregation
Step B:
Individualizing
Linguistic
Impasse: Language is dangerous
Cognitive State:
Establishing the truth
Philosophical
Stance: Objectivity
Cultural
Conflict: Competition
Psychological
Conflict: Shame, hopelessness,
despair
Interpersonal
Conflict: Distrust
Step C:
Patronizing or anger
Linguistic
Impasse: Colonizing language or asserting
linguistic hegemony
Cognitive State:
Adopting entirely new cognitive context or
equilibration within original cognitive context
Philosophical
Stance: Cultural relativism or Cultural
absolutism
Cultural
Conflict: Colonization or assimilation
pressure
Psychological
Conflict: Identity dislocation or rigidity
Interpersonal
Conflict: Co-optation, compromise, or
breakdown
Partnership
bridge
We attempt to intervene in
the viscous cycle described above by forming what
we call here a partnership bridge between members
of dominant and dominated groups. We appreciate the
"bridge" metaphor because for us bridges often span
natural borders and connect different territories.
We offer our partnership narrative serves as an
example of such a bridge. We described some of our
initial purposes and reasons for forming such a
partnership at the beginning of this paper, below
we describe our narrative and social justice
goals.
One narrative goal of the
partnership is to externalize the forces of group
membership within a context of social conflict that
would normally constrain our protest against
current or historical iniquities and our curiosity
about and respect for each other. Another narrative
goal is to reduce the constraints to discourse
between dominated and dominant groups by fostering
distinct individual and collective discourses
regarding pain and injustice. A social justice goal
is to develop methods of group communication
between dominant and dominated groups and methods
of accountability for both groups.
The dominant group partner
may experience fear, paranoia, awkwardness,
uncertainty, paralysis, political and religious
differences with her or his partner at the outset.
The partnership bridge can provide the dominant
group partner with an alternative experience-- that
of connection and exposure to collective
worldviews. Her or his cultural identity and
spirituality can be enriched by the reflections of
the partner and the rich experience of
diversity.
Similarly the dominated
group partner may also experience rage, fear,
paranoia, suspicion, awkwardness, uncertainty, and
political and religious differences during the
partnership experience. Experiences of oneself in
the encounter with the other as the constraints of
inter-group conflict are lessened can reflect back
a more positive identity, more affirming group
membership, and support the preservation of her or
his unique culture and spirituality.
Virtuous cycle of
partnership
We would like to describe
a virtuous cycle of reflexive inquiry that we have
found to the basis of an upward spiral that forms
the partnership bridge.
Curiosity- Externalized
discourse- Accountability
Curiosity begins with the
acceptance of not-knowing about the other, even to
the extent of the other as ultimately unknowable.
There is no object of curiosity only the
subjectivity of the other to be encountered. There
are minimal assumptions of cross cultural
competence. High levels of cross-cultural
competence may not be attainable without immersion
for many years in an intimate relationship and
within the linguistic, collective or communal
experience provided by a geographic community.
Rather the goal of the encounter is a reflexive
inquiry into the constraints to intimacy and
connection that preserves diversity and social
justice. The complexities of attaining competence
in this area involve examining one's assumptions
and move toward forming enduring and intimate
relationships across cultural and gender
boundaries.
Externalized discourse
either in caucuses or that promote relational
transparency can then be used to identify the
operations of power and hierarchy that fuel
inter-group conflict. Such discourses can shed
light on productive distinctions and
discriminations about the complexities of gender,
sexuality, multi-group membership and multi or bi-
raciality. This type of discourse provides for
encounters that transcend cultural, gender, or
spiritual "tourism" and moral relativism. By
reducing shame and enhancing hope and creativity
externalized discourse can weave the trusting
partnerships that bridge the boundaries created by
current and historical injustice.
Accountability mechanisms
are a preferred outcome of such collaborations.
Accountability requires both a respect for
differences and a willingness to be amended. It
arises from a striving for social justice based on
a dynamic understanding of the individual in the
context of cultural and gender differences that are
themselves situated in a context of social
conflict. Accountability requires listening to both
the individual and the collective voices of
dominated group members. It challenges both
partners to make moral discriminations within their
own group and encounter the moral discriminations
of the other group. Thus it is neither culturally
relativistic nor mono-culturally normative. On an
interpersonal level, accountability fosters the
boundaries and feelings of safety required for
enduring and intimate relationships across the
boundaries created by social conflict. Diversity
and differences are not only respected but
reflected back with a new richness of meaning. The
atmosphere of trust, intimacy and rich self
reflection inevitably fosters further reflexive
inquiry between the partners and groups and new
levels of curiosity about self and relation to the
other, thus beginning the cycle again.
Table
4. is attempt to sketch the steps of this virtuous
cycle for creating a partnership bridge.
Step A:
Curiosity
Interpersonal
Skill: Congruence
Cognitive State:
Unknowing
Philosophical
Stance: Subjectivity
Cultural Task:
Privileging diversity, valuing
difference
Psychological
Task: Examining assumptions
Interpersonal
Task: Learning, dialogue
Step B:
Externalized discourse
Interpersonal
skill: Transparency
Cognitive state:
Observing the operations of power
Philosophical
stance: Power/knowledge
Cultural Task:
Non-colonization
Psychological
Task: Reducing shame, enhancing creativity,
hope, possibility
Interpersonal
Task: Trust, caucusing
Step C:
Accountability
Interpersonal
skill: Respect
Cognitive state:
Willingness to be amended
Philosophical
stance: Moral discrimination
Cultural Task:
Social justice
Psychological
Task: Dynamic understanding of individual in
the context of social conflict
Interpersonal
Task: Forming enduring and intimate
relationships across social
boundaries
Conclusions
We have been engaged in a
process of transparency and personal exploration
with each other, as well as our students and
clients. We would like to circulate our discoveries
about diversity, fears and empowerment, and invite
others to join our ongoing conversation. We see
this effort as a logical continuation, in an
American context, of the ideas brought to the
narrative community by the Family Centre of New
Zealand. The goals of our work are:
To approach our
conversations by situating ourselves in our life
experience, employing curiosity, transparency, and
a willingness to be amended.
To encourage awkward
conversations-conversations that are usually
constrained by such fears as being inappropriately
racist, ageist, elitist or sexist with a structured
discourse that provides for and respects
differences.
To move through the
gateways of anger and protest that occur in such
conversations, to explore the range of complex and
intense emotions arising from cultural experiences
of oppression by respecting the interpersonal
boundaries that promote safety and
trust.
To articulate an ethic of
social justice when dealing with cultural, age,
class and gender differences in the context of
hierarchical relationships that are typical in our
practices: student/teacher, therapist/client.
Appendix:
Exercises A through F
Exercise A:
Group Identity and Memberships in the Context of
Social Conflict (Historical Narrative)
How has history seen my
group?
Group
Identity: What are the groups that history
places me in?
Historical
Advantage: What are the advantages that this
group is given by history?
Historical
Disadvantage: What are the disadvantages
that this group is given by history?
Dominant Group
History: History teaches me that this group
has had more power than other groups.
Dominated Group
History: History teaches me that this group
has had less power than other groups.
Externalized
Narrative: (Historical)What is the relative
influence of history on this group?
Exercise B:
Group Identity and Memberships in the Context of
Social Conflict (Self / Others
Narrative)
How have others have
seen me that influences how I see my
group?
Internalized
Group: What are the groups that have I felt
placed in by the perceptions of others?
Personal
Advantage: What are the advantages others
see me having based on membership in this
group?
Personal
Disadvantage: What are the stereotypes that
are projected on me based on membership in this
group?
Dominant Group
Distinction: Others have seen this group as
having more advantages and status than other
groups.
Dominated Group
Distinction: Others have seen this group as
having more disadvantages and less status than
other groups.
Externalized
Narrative: (Others and self) What is the
relative influence of others perceptions on my
group?
How do I see others
that influences how they see their group?
Group
Identity: What groups have I placed others
in by my perceptions of them?
Personal
Advantage: What are the advantages I see
others as having based on membership in this
group?
Personal
Disadvantage: What are the stereotypes that
I project on others based on membership in this
group?
Dominant Group
Distinction: I have seen this group as
having less advantages and status than other
groups.
Dominated Group
Distinction: I have seen this group as
having more advantages and status than other
groups.
Externalized
Narrative: (Self and other) What is the
relative influence of my perceptions on
others?
Exercise C:
Group Identity and Memberships in the
Context of Social Conflict (Internalized self/other
Narrative)
How have I internalized
my perceptions about my group?
Identity
Issue: How have my perceptions about my
group been internalized? influenced my identity?
Group Advantages:
What advantages do I see myself as deserving
based on membership in this group?
Group
Disadvantages: What have I internalized that
defines me unfavorably based on membership in
this group?
Dominant Group
Distinctions: I have seen myself as having a
neutral or desirable identity based on my
internalization of membership in this
group.
Dominated Group
Distinctions: I have seen myself having a
less desirable identity based on my
internalization of membership in this
group.
Externalized
Narrative: (Internalized self) What is the
relative influence of my internalized identity
on perceptions about myself?
How have I internalized
perceptions about others?
Identity
Issue: How do my internalized
self-perceptions influence my perceptions about
others' identity?
Group
Advantages: What are the advantages that I
feel that others deserve based on my membership
in this group?
Group
Disadvantages: What have I internalized that
defines others unfavorably based on my
membership in this group?
Dominant Group
Distinctions: Others have seen me as having
a desirable identity based on this group
membership.
Dominated Group
Distinctions: Others have seen me as having
a less desirable identity based on this group
membership.
Externalized
Narrative: (Internalized other) What is the
relative influence of my internalized identity
on my perceptions about others?
Exercise D:
Group Identity and Memberships in the
Context of Social Justice (Liberative
Narrative)
How have I seen my
identity change in the context of a liberation
ideology
Identity
Issue: What changes has my internalized
group identify undergone?
Advantage: What
integrity of identity have I accomplished? What
is yet to be attained?
Disadvantage:
What ambivalence about my identity have I
successfully resolved? What internalized
oppression remains?
Dominant Group
Distinctions: I see myself in a process of
struggle to accept diversity and promote social
justice between groups.
Dominated Group
Distinctions: I see myself in a process of
struggle for uniqueness and social justice
between groups.
Unique Accounts:
(Self Liberative) What has been my relative
influence over internalized
oppression?
How have I seen my
group identity change in the context of a
liberation ideology?
Identity
Issue: What changes in identify has this
group undergone?
Advantage: What
social advantages has this group attained
through successful struggle? What is to be
attained?
Disadvantage:
What disadvantages and stereotypes has this
group successfully changed? What is to be
protested?
Dominant Group
Distinctions: I see this group in a process
of struggle to accept diversity and promote
social justice between groups.
Dominated Group
Distinctions: I see this group in a process
of struggle for uniqueness and social justice
between groups.
Unique Accounts:
(Group Liberative) What has been the relative
influence of this group over historical
oppression?
Exercise E:
Group Identity and Memberships in the Context of
Partnership (Self-Inquiry)
How do I see my myself
and my group through partnership?
Identity
Issue: How has my identify as a member of
this group been changed, enriched, unified or
diversified?
Socio-political
Advantages: What are the advantages that I
now see that I did not see my group as
having?
Socio-political
Disadvantages: What are the disadvantages
that I now see that I did not see my group as
having?
Significant
Internalized Distinctions: Identity,
diversity, desirability issues for myself that I
did not see or see more clearly now.
Significant Social
Justice Distinctions: Power, and status,
issues for myself that I did not see.
Interrelational
Narrative: Alternative account of my
narrative about my group identity.
How do I see my partner
and her or his group through partnership.
Identity
Issue: How do I see my partners identify as
a member of her or his group been changed,
enriched, unified or diversified?
Socio-political
Advantages: What are the advantages that I
now see that I did not see my partner's group as
having?
Socio-political
Disadvantages: What are the disadvantages
that I now see that I did not see my partner's
group as having?
Significant Social
Justice Distinctions: Identity, diversity,
desirability issues for my partner's group that
I did not see or see more clearly
now.
Significant
Internalized Distinctions: Power, and
status, issues for my partner's group that I did
not see.
Interrelational
Narrative: Alternative account of my
narrative about my partner's group
identity.
Exercise F:
Group Identity and Memberships in the Context of
Partnership (Partner Inquiry)
How does my partner see
me and my group through partnership. (After
partner inquiry)
Identity
Issue: How has my partner seen my identify
as a member of my group been changed, enriched,
unified or diversified?
Social-political
Advantages: What are the advantages that my
partner sees that I did not see my group as
having?
Social-political
Disadvantages: What are the disadvantages
that my partner sees that I did not see my group
as having?
Significant
Internalized Distinctions: My partner sees
identity, diversity, desirability issues for me
that I did not see or see more clearly now.
Significant Social
Justice Distinctions: My partner sees power,
and status, issues for me that I did not
see.
Interrelational
Narrative: Alternative account of my
partners narrative about me.
How does my partner
sees her or himself and her or his group through
partnership. (After partner inquiry)
Identity
Issue: How has my partner's identify as a
member of her or his group been changed,
enriched, unified or diversified?
Social-political
Advantages: What are the advantages that my
partner now sees that she or he did not see her
or his group as having?
Social-political
Disadvantages: What are the disadvantages
that my partner now sees that she or he did not
see her or his group as having?
Significant
Internalized Distinctions: My partner sees
identity, diversity, desirability issues for her
or his group that I did not see or see more
clearly now.
Significant Social
Justice Distinctions: My partner sees power,
and status, issues for her or his group that I
did not see.
Interrelational
Narrative: Alternative account of my
partners narrative about her or his
group.
REFERENCES
American Psychological
Association. (1991). Guidelines for Providers of
Psychological Services to Ethnic, Linguistic, and
Culturally Diverse Populations.
Gergen, K. J. (1991). The
Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in
Contemporary Life. New York. Basic
Books.
Lewin, K. (1948).
Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on
Group Dynamics (1935-1946). New York. Harper &
Row.
Lobovits, D. &
Freeman, J.C. (1993). Toward collaboration and
accountability: Alternatives to the dominant
discourse for understanding sexual exploitation by
professionals. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, 3&4,
33-44.
Tamasese, K. &
Waldegrave, C. (1993). Cultural and gender
accountability in the "Just Therapy" approach.
Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 5(2),
29-45.
Tapping, C. (1993). Other
Wisdoms, Other Worlds: Colonisation & Family
Therapy. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, 1,
3-37.
Waldegrave, C. (1990).
Just Therapy. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, 1,
6-46.
Waldegrave, C. (1991).
Weaving Threads of Meaning and Distinguishing
Preferably Patterns. Lower Hutt, New Zealand:
Authors reprint.
Waldegrave, C. (1992)
Psychology, Politics and the Loss of the Welfare
State. New Zealand Psychological Society Bulletin,
74, October, 14-21.
White, M. (1991)
Deconstruction and Therapy. Dulwich Centre
Newsletter, 3, 21-40.
