Cross-Cultural Counseling: From Methods to More?

"...facts alone would miss the importance of the identification process I had experienced: the change in self-definition and in the activities on which I based my self-esteem. They would also miss a simple condition necessary for me to make this identification: treatment as a valued person with good prospects."
-Claudia Steele
adapted from personal narrative (Glauser and Bozarth)

Claudia Steele's statement is so powerful, although, like Glauser and Bozarth mention, not from a counseling experience. Deem me idealist, but imagine for a moment that you, as a counselor, could help your client achieve this kind of awakening. True, that like parenting where you raise your child from birth to grow increasingly independent, isn't it a goal to help your client help themselves so that you, the counselor, are needed minimally until perhaps, not needed anymore? I certainly think that is a goal, but HOW?

The first part of Claudia Steele's quote is what resonated most when reading the passage...FACTS ALONE would miss the importance of the identification process. Can we really be effective counselors hiding behind the auspices of models and formal processes? Like Glauser and Bozarth state that too much emphasis has been placed on how to DO counseling rather than to BE a counselor. To BE requires a much deeper deluge, and deconstructing "assumptions and myths that they (we) have assimilated over a lifetime." This reminds me of a previous post, where I feel needs clarification and is even more pertinent in the topic of multi-culturalism. As mentioned previously, I read two bell hooks (she writes her name in all lowercase letters) books on pedagogy. bell hooks is a renowned professor, author, feminist and African American scholar, she talks in her books in detail about sex and race. Particularly in Teaching Critical Thinking, something she calls, "crying white girl syndrome". She recants a story about being in a class discussing sensitive topics on human rights and the oppression and torture of minorities. hooks notes that while the topic was gruesome, a middle class white girl in her class stood up and began talking about how anyone could be so cruel and she began to weep uncontrollably. hooks stated that this is "crying white girl syndrome" and hooks was offended and even angered because the class was no longer about discussing the topic. She felt the "crying white girl" had tried to shift the focus of the class and everyone's attention/sympahty onto her. I admit, upon reading this, I was taken aback. I thought, I have done this. I know I have cried at reading books on the Holocaust, and even in a Human Rights Anthropology class about the torture of the Sudanese or Congolese or Guatemalans. But, my feelings in those situations were not self-serving, they were definitely not to bring attention to myself for the pity of others around me. They were, or so I thought, empathetic. But it was more so what Chung and Bemark describe as, " the Western or traditional definition of empathy (that) is defined without sufficient knowledge, awareness, and the complexity and mechanisms that are crucial to be effective across cultures." After further reflection I see that hooks was right. It may have been a tough pill to swallow but the point is that empathy is not necessarily cross-cultural, and often one thinks empathetically but must examine closely as to whether the tears and emotions are sympathy. And, more importantly, I have grown from that kind of uncomfortable, knock-you-off-your-seat reflection, and now I find myself searching for more.

So, taking a step back and trying to put myself in bell hooks shoes in that classroom, being a strong, intelligent Black woman from the segregated South. I can feel the barrage of emotions and wanting so badly to discuss why racism exists and what can we do to change that notion and so much more, but then, ultimately being upstaged by a "crying white girl". I find that this kind of self-analysis is the key to achieving what Claudia Steel speaks of, albeit sometimes the deconstructing of ideas and norms to which one grew can feel like an existential crisis or at least wrestling with a Silverback Gorilla. But, this fundamental change was the beginning of a new kind of empathy, person-centered rather than self-centered. I say beginning because it is a journey of being. To say doing, implies the finite. One does an activity but then completes it. But, counseling, like life, isn't doing. Glauser and Bozarth say multicultural competency can lead to important discoveries as long as it is not via prescribed techniques or approaches, lest the therapeutic encounter suffer. Counseling, specifically multi-cultural or cross-cultural or person-centered counseling, is BEING, being present and open, infinitely...to the dynamics of people as individuals,the evolution of cultures, and recognizing and using the inner resources and potential of clients. While Chung and Bemark's list of six major dimensions that significantly contribute to effective cultural empathy was enlightening and gave some insight into specific ideas to keep in mind when counseling a client with a different culture, I think to numerically list these guidelines undermines the importance of person-centered counseling and is counter to the ideas presented. For all of us will-be counselors in the class and reading these articles have this process in some capacity within us, or we would not be here. I think we do these things subconsciously. Consequently, the most important message from these articles is to BE a counselor first, and engage in the process of counseling second.