Culturally Sensitive Supervision and Training

Diverse Perspectives and Practical Applications

Kenneth V. Hardy, Toby Bobes, Kenneth V. Hardy, Toby Bobes

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781317299882
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Education in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Culturally Sensitive Supervision and Training: Diverse Perspectives and Practical Applications is a comprehensive text that exposes readers to an array of culturally competent approaches to supervision and training. The book consists of contributions from a culturally and professionally diverse group of scholars and clinicians who have been on the frontline of providing culturally competent supervision and training in a variety of settings. Many of the invited contributing authors have developed innovative clinical-teaching strategies for skillfully and effectively incorporating issues of culture into both the classroom and the consulting room. A major portion of the book will provide the reader with an insider's view of these strategies as well as a plan for implementation, with one chapter devoted to experiential exercises to enhance cultural sensitivity in supervision and training. The text is intended for use in supervision courses, but trainers and supervisors will also find it essential to their work.

PART I The Use of Self in Supervision and Training

DOI: 10.4324/9781315648064-1

1 TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MULTICULTURAL RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE IN TRAINING AND SUPERVISION

Kenneth V. Hardy, PhD

DOI: 10.4324/9781315648064-2

In the increasingly diverse world in which we live, it has become imperative for us to examine the myriad of contextual variables such as race, class, gender, religion, and sexual orientation (McGoldrick & Hardy, 2008; Schulz & Mullings, 2006; Frey, 2015) that give meaning to our lives and shape what we consider to constitute an undisputable truth. Nowhere are these struggles and sensitivities more critical to consider than in the process of supervision and training. The psychosocial and sociocultural landscapes upon which we, as clinicians, practice require each of us to engage in the process of rethinking and re-visioning the field of psychotherapy. The re-visioning of our field, for example, requires us to consider the ways in which both complex inter/intra-personal dynamics as well as the processes of training and supervision are profoundly shaped by the nuances of race, class, gender, and a host of other contextual variables. This re-visioning will assure that effective trainers and supervisors must not only understand and master the complex rudiments of psychotherapy, but must also possess a comprehensive understanding of how cultural factors shape the lives of those we train, treat, and supervise.

Possessing a comprehensive understanding of all of the nuances of every cultural group with whom we might possibly interact is often a desirable but unfortunately impossible and improbable feat to accomplish. The richness and complexity of diversity is such that it would be a daunting task to fully comprehend all of the subcultural variations that might exist within the same cultural group. For example, it is possible for two people to identify as Black and share many cultural commonalities, and yet also have vast and countless differences between them. I was born in the northeastern corridor of the United States to parents who were raised and socialized in the rural and racially segregated South. Their lives were permanently scarred by the insidious, inexplicable, and inhumane treatment that accompanied growing up Black in the racially segregated, Jim Crow, residuals of slavery–infested South. Growing up on a steady diet of stories saturated in racial suffering opened my young, innocent, and naïve eyes to the abject potential of humans' ability to treat others inhumanly solely on the basis of race. My conception of what it means to be Black, as well as the race-related values, mores, and perspectives that I subscribe to have been sharply influenced by where I grew up, my parents' experiences, and the racial climate of the country in the era in which I spent my formative years. On the other hand, I have a Black colleague who was born in Nigeria to Nigerian-born parents who migrated to the United States in their mid-forties and when she was thirteen. Her experience as a Black person has been markedly influenced by her experiences as an African, an African immigrant of immigrant parents, whose socialization and education have been split between two continents. Her experience of being Black, unlike mine, has been profoundly shaped by four devalued identities: Black, African, immigrant, and female.

Despite efforts to the contrary, it is virtually impossible to simplify culture or to employ reductionist thinking by neatly codifying it into discrete measurable entities. Unfortunately, many supervisors and trainers try to promote cultural sensitivity by attempting to simplify culture. In their efforts to do so there is a tendency to (over)focus on the central tendencies of discrete groups, followed by a “cultural prescription” for how they should be treated or supervised. A notable example is the propensity to mainly describe the characteristic of Latino males from the lens of machismo as a “cultural prescription,” which often creates a narrow focus on hypermasculine relational interactions among Latino men in treatment and supervision (Sue & Sue, 2013; McGoldrick, Giordano & Garcia-Preto, 2005). While the intent and many efforts to prepare culturally sensitive clinicians and supervisors are laudable and timely, we believe the approach requires a more systematic, comprehensive, and ideologically driven approach. That is, rather than focusing heavily on the cultural proclivities of specific groups, we believe an approach that encourages and nurtures perpetual curiosity about the multifaceted role of culture is a more thoughtful and comprehensive path to explore. We believe that developing a multicultural relational perspective is a critical and necessary precursor to increasing sensitivity and inviting the type of perpetual cultural curiosity that we envision.

Toward the development of a Multicultural Relational Perspective (MRP) to training and supervision

A Multicultural Relational Perspective (MRP) is a metaframework that can be used to facilitate a shift in how supervisors and supervisees begin to think about clinical work and how it seamlessly interfaces “culture” in both the broadest and narrowest sense of the word. Hardy and Laszloffy (2002) describe the MCP (Multicultural Perspective), as referred to at that time, as “a worldview, an epistemology or way of thinking about the world and where we place ourselves in it” (p. 569). According to Hardy and Laszloffy (2002), “it is not a codified set of skills or tasks” that one performs with this type or that type of client or supervisee. Instead the MCP is a worldview that recognizes how the nuances of culture and all of its appendages are contaminants, informants, and meaning-makers throughout virtually all aspects of our lives. In this regard the MCP is predicated on the following assumptions:

1. Culture is a broad-based multidimensional concept that is comprised of, but not limited to, race, class, religion, sexual oriental, gender, family of origin, ethnicity, age, regionality, and so forth;
2. Culture is simultaneously dynamic, fluid, and static—because culture is broadly based and multidimensional, it is also multidirectional and fluid. Each dimension of culture potentially influences the other in a way that is active and ever changing. For example, my sexual orientation as a heterosexual informs how I think of and behave as a man. My gender identity as a male helps to shape and inform how I negotiate my heterosexuality. Both my gender and sexual orientation are influenced by my racial identity and the meanings I attach to being a Black, heterosexual male. Yet there are also aspects of culture that can be static. For instance, when I think of myself racially, how I think of myself now (racially speaking) is not different from how I have at any other points of my life. The specific meanings that I attach to being Black may have definitely changed throughout my life but not the fact that I think of myself as Black.
3. Culture is a pervasive and potent organizing principle—culture is pervasive and influential. Everyone belongs to “a culture,” whether it is recognized or ignored, claimed or disavowed. Furthermore, there is no aspect of our lives that is completely walled off from the influences of culture. For example, how we manage intimacy and conflict, express emotions (or fail to), as well as rituals that we embrace/reject, and/or how we think of ourselves are all experiences that are significantly shaped by culture. Although in contemporary parlance the terms “culture” and “cultural” are often used to refer to those who are not a part of the “mainstream,” the fact of the matter is that each of us is embedded in culture.
4. Culture is multifaceted and multipurpose—it serves many varied functions in our lives. It can provide a sense of rootedness, a source of identity development, a coping resource, “rules of engagement” dictating who is included/excluded, and be a marker of pride and/or shame, etc.
5. Culture is timeless—it transcends past, present, and future. In many ways culture can serve as a connective tissue to our past, situate us in the present, and provide a foundation for and/or give direction to how we envision our future.

Given our view about the omnipresence of culture and its concomitant influences, we believe that attempting to ignore or exorcise it from any aspect of our daily lives is myopic. We believe that making an effort to do so within the context of therapy is even more egregiously shortsighted. Thus it is our contention that preparing therapists to consider culture within the context of their clinical work is of paramount significance. The execution of this goal requires therapists, trainers, and supervisors to think differently about both their work and themselves. Supervision should minimally achieve two major objectives in this regard: 1) assist supervisees in seeing the ways in which human suffering and the appendages of culture are virtually inextricable; and 2) highlight the ways in which the supervisor-supervisee relationship is powerfully shaped by the intricacies of culture. This is a very significant and rudimentary step to help facilitate the development of a multicultural perspective.

Key foundational principles

Taking progressive steps toward the development of a multicultural relational perspective requires familiarity with and some degree of mastery of the following interrelated principles. While each principle is discussed individually, there is a rich synergistic interplay between and among them that defies separating them. Hence the segregated discussion of the principles during the ensuing pages is done solely for the sake of explanation and clarity.

1. Promote relational thinking. The essence of relational thinking is that it encourages us to think about how all matter is potentially connected, particularly matter that at first glance seems disparate. For instance, it helps us to consider the powerful relationship between the “haves” of the wealthy and the “have-nots” of the poor. It is through relational thinking that we are able to consider how past, present, and future are intertwined, for example. Or how human suffering can be the culmination of the delicate interweaving of many different domains of one's life. Relational thinking positions us to seek “connection” in the face of disconnection. When we develop some degree of mastery in relational thinking, we begin to realize that “disconnection,” for example, is a symptom not of an independent condition; it is a consequence, not just a cause. Relational thinking frees us to see how our fates are interconnected. It helps us to shift our view from a polarizing and static either/or position of “self” or “other” to the relational position of Self in Relationship to Other (Hardy & Laszloffy, 2002). The visionary Martin Luther King (1963) spoke of the importance of Self in Relationship to Other over forty years ago when he famously noted that “the rich man can never be all that he hopes to be until the poor man is all that he wishes to be”—another powerful reminder that we all are interconnected and “entangled in a web of mutuality.”
2. Embrace Both/And Thinking. Thinking Relationally and Embracing Both/And are interwoven concepts. In many ways one cannot exist without the other. However, this principle is so germane to the development of an MRP that it warrants special highlighting here. Embracing Both/And enables us to authentically hold seemingly offsetting, contradictory, and incongruous positions. It is through the embrace of both/and thinking that we are able to not only see the potential relationship between one's behavior as a perpetrator and one's victimization, but also we can actually genuinely validate the existence of the coexistence of these two opposing aspects of self. We are able to comprehend with greater clarity how one can be simultaneously oppressed and oppressive, privileged and subjugated, or “good and evil.” Hardy and Laszloffy (2002) explicate that “embracing both/and thinking not only invites us to think about the ways in which these phenomena may be connected; it also encourages us to respond in ways that place these interconnections at the forefront of what we do” (p. 571). In this case, “what we do” from the viewpoint of an MRP is authentically held by embracing both the oppressed and oppressive, or privileged and subjugated, aspects that coexist in a person.
3. Advocate thinking culturally. As human beings, we are cultural beings, and it is the various dimensions of culture (ethnicity, ability, nationality, etc.) that offer contextual meaning to our lives. When we begin to think culturally, it facilitates our ability to think of others and ourselves more broadly and complexly. We begin to think of others and ourselves in terms of the various cultural locations in which they/we are embedded. We believe that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to fully understand the essence of one's being without knowing something about one's cultural context. Thus thinking culturally ultimately means that we remain perpetually curious about the ways in which culture is a major organizing principle throughout our lives.
4. Encourage the development of a multidimensional view of the self. The process of thinking culturally should ideally start with thyself (which is generally true for all principles associated with the MRP). Developing a Multidimensional View of the Self is the first crucial step toward beginning to see others more complexly, that is, culturally. Developing a deeper and more complex understanding of the self paves the way to understanding others similarly. The development of a Multidimensional View of the Self challenges the notion that what is typically thought of as the self is actually comprised of many selves. For example, each of us has a gendered self, a racial self, a religious self, an ethnic self, a sexual orientation self, and Family of Origin (FOO) self, as well as a host of others. Since many of our selves are socially constructed, they are imbued with varying degrees of power, powerlessness, privilege, and subjugation as they are reified in the larger culture. Many of us are equipped with both privileged and subjugated selves. As a Black, heterosexual, middle-class male, I possess several privileged selves—gender, sexual orientation, and class—while also possessing a subjugated self, which is my racial self. As each of us begins to see ourselves through the prism of our multiple selves, including those that are privileged and subjugated, we are much better equipped to see others similarly. The more comprehensively we can see ourselves and others, the greater the degree of compassion, understanding, and humility we can have for each other.
5. Encourage an intense focus on the “Self.” One of the major hallmarks of the MRP centers on the development and understanding of the self. There are three interrelated components of “Self”-oriented work that warrant highlighting: Knowledge; Interrogation; and Location or Use of Selves. These are critical and essential components of the MRP. “Self” knowledge refers to the developing sense of awareness that one has and remains committed to exploring with regards to one's multiple selves. Self-interrogation, on the other hand, refers to the process of actively questioning one's developing sense of self-awareness. This process may involve unpacking and critiquing unexamined internalized messages that may be harmful or beneficial to the self and others. The Location or Use of “Self” refers to the facility with which one can draw from the knowledge one has of one's self that can be accessed as a potential interpersonal resource to promote connections. The Location or Use of “Self” is predicated on the effective use of “Self” disclosure, which is an important ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Contributors
• Part I The Use of Self in Supervision and Training
• Part II Issues of Identity and Social Location in Supervision and Training
• Part III Strategies for Promoting Cultural Sensitivity in Supervision and Training
• Part IV Tactics for Negotiating Difficult Dialogues in Supervision and Training
• Index