Multiculturalism in Counseling

Concept Addressed:

Multiculturalism in Counseling

Response

The fact that Corey & Corey point out that multiculturalism is viewed as an important force in addition to psychodynamic, behavioral, and humanistic approaches, necessitates some further discussion on this concept. More than a theoretical approach , multiculturalism is a process counselors participate in an effort to better understand themselves and their clients. Becoming aware of social cultural values that emphasis education or family ties and how these evaluations differ not only from individual to individual but also group to group is an important part of creating authentic client-counselor relationships. Additionally multiculturalism is proper process for counselors in group settings because it parallels group process, emphasizing the notion that specific content is secondary to a broad sensitivity. That is to say, we cannot as counselors attempt to know how a specific group expresses itself in terms stereotypes or expectations that members of a certain group will use these words, actions or practices, but rather counselors may develop their sense of what members of a certain group might praise or find taboo, how this culture finds sources of strength in the face adversity.

Something interesting in the reading of Groups (Corey & Corey), in regard to multicultural counseling was the comparison of drop-out rates in counseling groups. According to the text non-Euro-Americans have higher drop out rates in counseling groups when compared to their Euro-American counterparts; linguistic difficulties as well as culture-bound issues that inhibited the counseling relationship were cited as factors for these rates. In the next page they underscore this difference between ethnic groups citing the work of DeLucia- Waack and Dongian (2004). Delucia-Waack et al. articulated the idea that the efficacy of group work over traditional individual therapy was Eurocentric, and not widely accepted on non-Western spheres. This claim struck me as dubious. If among Pendersen’s beliefs about culture is that it extends past the mere racial and ethnic backgrounds, pointing out differences in racial/ethnic backgrounds when looking at drop-out rates in group counseling simplifies and may produce false data in regard these groups. The fact that individualized psycho-therapy arose out of Eurocentric framework, points out that Euro-Western therapy has was not originally focused on the group. In fact one could argue that African and Asian cultures have placed emphasis on groups form the beginning, understanding that shamans, medicine men, and monks from these traditions work to provide healing and change that benefits tribe or clans, not single members. In other words, I question whether poor retention rates of non-Euro Americans in group therapy is more related to linguistic and social economic factors, ie class problems, than to cultural values, seeing as individualism is more representative of the Eurocentric rather than Asiatic or Afro centered cultures.

This type of contradiction within the research literature is mostly likely a primary reason why interest in multicultural perspectives has become such a spark word in therapeutic fields of psychology and counseling. The data suggest differences amongst and within groups, and in the same sentence, these data also support false stereotypes and connotations, this is perhaps that fault of some studies that create false binaries: males vs. females European vs. non-European. Contemporary researchers and counselors must attempt to look past these notions to broaden our concept of what constitutes a culture.

Reflections

I am beginning to understand that while I see myself as individuated, Will, society also defines me as a member of group(s). At times the membership in a group is voluntary, I am part of a learning group, a student and other times I am assigned a group. I am male and black, or am I?

In reading and thinking about groups and others, I am realizing that others thoughts and behaviors I might find deplorable are acceptable within their own cultural context. Also, what makes some one “other” is not defined by them, but me.

What I am learning about groups is that group process like cultural process is quite fluid. Group members and leaders are continually reassessing what is going on now. Just as cultural groups are in continual process of refining and defining themselves.

Groups seem to work best when both leaders and members maintain their agency, that is when leaders are able to provide boundaries , structure and respect, and members are able to access their options , whether they be limiting feedback to the group, choosing to reveal something personal or participating in the current exercise.