(Hillman, 1986). Effective communication between the self and the âOtherâ requires not only verbal but also cultural
Running Head: Cultural Competency Cultural Competency Beyond Depth Psychology Rashin D’Angelo Pacifica Graduate Institute Ph.D. Clinical Psychology
Cultural Competency
A multicultural perspective is similar to a psychodynamic theoretical
orientation, one in which the parts are integrated into a whole, yet remain distinct and respected for their differences. Similar to a psychoanalytical ideal of a “differentiated psyche”, the Jungian analyst Andrew Samuels has referred to this capacity to “hold unity and diversity in balance” as a “psychical pluralism” (1989, p.1), as opposed to a dominant, monotheistic view of contemporary psychology.
Culture encompasses age, gender, race and ethnicity, religious views, class,
sexual orientation, education, political affiliation, sub-‐cultural identity, and physical characteristics. Cultural competence and sensitivity in the field of psychology concern therapists’ ability to treat people of diverse cultural backgrounds in ways that respect and integrate their socio-‐cultural context (Lopez, 1997). Moving between the cultural frames of the client and the clinician is essential to cultural competence, and can situate the therapeutic encounter as a “tool of cultural enrichment rather than oppression” (Hocoy, 2002, p. 141). Cultural competency in clinical practice looks beyond therapist’s education and professional training, to an awareness of one’s own cultural lens, personal biases and dogmatic beliefs. It asks for a nondogmatic psychological perspective that encourages “free and open critical inquiry and amicable, diaological relations” (Adams, 1996. P.4). In a cross-‐cultural contact, in or out of the consulting room, acculturation can occur, yet personal and cultural identities do not need to be discarded, but merely transformed to challenge oppressive assumptions of the “Other”.
2
Cultural Competency
The “Other” is an essential vessel for social displacement, and holds the
projections of the dominant culture’s undesirable aspects. It is a natural human creation, fulfilling basic identity and affiliation, as well as intra-‐psychic needs to rid one self of undesirable feelings and traits. It is a tool for survival in the modern, civilized era, creating an environment of intolerance and disparity. It is only in real contact with what constitutes the “Other” that true integration of marginalized and denounced aspects of individuals and cultures can occur, moving the personal and collective psyche towards wholeness.
The dominant voice of any society finds expression in the ego of the
individual through various modes of socialization. Minority voices are undesirable, challenging the present ethos, forced into the collective unconscious and become the marginalized shadow, abhorred by society. By acknowledging the impact of the collective shadow on individual consciousness, the therapist can gain awareness into the conscious, intentional, verbal means as well as intra-‐psychic influence of psychotherapy on serving as a tool of enculturation.
Although crucial to acknowledge in clinical practice, diversity is an
archetype, used to organize differences. It is much easier unconsciously to reduce complex differences to simple oppositions (i.e., black and white, dominant and minority), than to comprehend their infinite possibilities. As emphasized by Sloane, “oppositional logic is a symbolic function, which allows little room for the continuum of ambiguities” (1989, p.88). Hillman further maintains “differences neither compete, contradict nor oppose” (1986, p. 39) and that what is needed in
3
Cultural Competency
psychology, is an imagination acknowledging differences in degree rather than kind (Hillman, 1986).
Effective communication between the self and the “Other” requires not only
verbal but also cultural fluency. Bulgarian philosopher, Todorov, refers to the importance of nonviolent communication rather than violent confrontation (1984, p. 182). The ultimate objective is to experience “difference in equality” through “cultural hybridization (1984, p.249). Simply experiencing differences as what they are, without placing value judgments, a psychological hybridization can seem attainable. Along similar lines, James Hillman talks about departing from the literal perspective, towards a more metaphoric sensibility, free from interpretation and analysis. Depth Psychology Traditional schools of depth psychology, mainly Freudian and Jungian theories, have brought reflection to the inner psychic processes. But emphasis has been on the human psyche, neglecting the ecological psyche, the soul of the world (Aizenstat, 1995). While both Freud and Jung developed systems of psychological thought, neither placed importance on the interconnectedness of human experience and the world at large (Aizenstat, 1995). According to Adams, “if Freudian analysis has tended to be sexually reductive, then Jungian analysis has tended to be archetypally reductive” (1996, p. 35). A more inclusive understanding of psychic reality includes a merging of the individual self and the world into the notion of one role, unas mundas. As the boundaries of inner and outer lives dissolve, the potentiality of the present moment allows for synchronicity.
4
Cultural Competency
A more comprehensive understanding of psychic reality is currently being explored by a new generation of depth psychologists, including James Hillman, Robert Sardello, Robert Romanyshyn, Mary Watkins, Stephen Aizenstat, among others. Deconstructing personal history, self, identity, gender, individuality and culture, human beings are implicated in the environment. Today’s depth psychologist would advocate that “suffering in the world, is reflected, and interactive with, the suffering of human beings” (Aizenstat, p. 99, 1995). This implication stresses that changes in one’s environment may be as therapeutic as interior alterations and the root of today’s physiological and psychological illnesses can be found in the ills of the world (Hillman, 1995). James Hillman maintains that the subjectivity of psychology “equates psychic reality with experience, needing ego to be an interior witness so that it can be imagined” (1982, p. 100). He introduces an alternative perspective, returning reality back to the world, to look at environment for inspiration as well as illness, and to find beauty amidst the ugliness. Hillman further argues against reducing soul to personal subjectivity, naming “personalism” as one of the burdens of the modern era. Although psyche presents itself in images of persons and in personal feelings, soul is not personal of itself. Hillman views “anima mundi”, or the soul of the world, a patient in need of therapeutic attention. Just like alchemists who described soul as an opus, a work, Hillman views culture as soul making (Hillman, 1989). He revisions psychology away from a medicine complex (Hillman, 1975), and reiterates that soul does not need to be free from symptoms or life lived perfectly (Hillman, 1989). By seeing
5
Cultural Competency
oneself in the face of the “Other”, the world’s display of itself, individuals are saved from a narcissistic, egocentric distancing from the world (Hillman, 1989). Depth psychology respects the inherent nature of the individual, and each culture. In this way, depth psychology does not bind its concepts to the individual mind, but instead extends them to include how individuals, groups, cultures, nations, and the planet are each affected by the interactions. To be truly
multicultural, the field must extend its horizon. The collective unconscious needs to be redefined to include, not only personal history, culture, and ethnicity within archetypal images, but the ecological influences on the individual. The way out of specialization and professionalism, the isolation they breed, and the unreality that eventually follows upon self-‐enclosure is to entertain fresh ideas (Hillman, 1995). Depth psychology would contend that physiological illness is connected to detachment from nature’s rhythms (Aizenstat, 1995), and work in collaboration with other professional organizations, such as the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Medical Association (AMA) to envision an integral, multicultural approach to healing.
6
Cultural Competency
References: Adams, M. V. (1996). The Multicultural Imagination: Race, Color, and the Unconscious. New York: Routledge. Hillman, J. (1975). Re-Visioning Psychology. New York: Harper & Row. Hillman, J. (1982). Anima Mundi: The return of the soul to the world. Spring, 71-‐93. Hillman, J. (1986). Notes on white supremacy: Essaying an archetypal account of Historical events. Spring, 46, 29-‐58. Hillman, J. (1989). A Blue Fire. New York: Harper & Row. Hillman, J. (1995). A psyche the size of the earth: A psychological foreword. In Roszak, T., Gomes, M. E., Kanner, A. D. (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing the mind (pp. xvii-‐xxiii). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Hocoy, D. (2002). Cross-‐cultural issues in art therapy. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 19, 141-‐145. Hocoy, D. (2005). Art therapy and social action: A transpersonal framework. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 22, 7-‐16. Lopez, S. (1997). Cultural competence in psychotherapy: A guide for clinicians and Their supervisors. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy Supervision (pp.570-‐588). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Samuels, A. (1989). The Plural Psyche: Personality, morality and the Father. London and New York: Routledge. Sloane, P. (1989). The Visual Nature of Color. New York: Design. Todorov, T. (1984). The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other, trans. R. Howard, New York: Harper & Row.
7
