" Revisiting Cultural Awareness and Cultural Relevancy "

Abi-Hashem, N. (2015). Revisiting Cultural Awareness and Cultural Relevancy. American Psychologist, 70 (7), 660-661. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/70/7/660/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038984 Revisiting Cultural Awareness and Cultural Relevancy Naji Abi-Hashem Independent Practice, Seattle, Washington and Beirut, Lebanon This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. I was delighted to see the article on “Critical Cultural Awareness” in the October issue of the American Psychologist by Christopher, Wendt, Marecek, and Goodman (2014). The more insights and exploration of the meaning and influence of culture we receive, the better. There is no single treatment of any personal or collective culture(s) that can be inherently complete or totally exhaustive. New hermeneutics and skills are always needed, appreciated, and refreshing. A few thousand years ago, Socrates once said, “Know Thyself.” Culturally speaking, the practice of self-awareness remains a desired virtue. That was true in ancient times, and is still true today, especially when modern societies and subcultures are changing more rapidly than ever and unfolding faster than we can mentally adapt, socially digest, or emotionally process. The concept of culture does not appear to be fixed or static but is always dynamic and is ever fluid. As a Lebanese American, I continue to observe, study, and interact with so many cultures and subcultures locally and globally, especially comparing the differences and similarities between the East and the West (and anything in between). I find the notion of culture(s) in general to be intriguing and truly fascinating! Actually, there are many layers of cultures and many spheres of worldviews, even within one geographical area, urban setting, or residential location. That is also true inside the faculties of the human personality, on individual level as well. It seems there are subcultures within each culture, mentalities within each mentality, and worldviews within each worldview. Furthermore, I find that cultures cannot be adequately defined or fully understood. They are better felt than defined and better experienced than explained (AbiHashem, 1997, 2014a, 2014b; Cohen, 2009). I wish sometimes that our graduate schools in psychology would require more cultural studies and anthropological training to equip students for dealing with the rich and yet complex phenomena of our global-social-local-personal culture(s). I would like to add to the well-documented treatment and discussion that 660 Christopher et al. (2014) provided, that it is also critical to emphasize that our cultural self-awareness must be quite frequent and up-to-date. It is not a one-time procedure, examination, or discovery. The present times we live in are changing fast, deep, and strong, affecting our existential identity and sense of cultural and global self (if I may use the term—as I have been trying to develop this concept recently). That is, who are we becoming culturally at this globalized, polarized, and digitalized age? Societies are drastically varying and rapidly moving, and the world’s cultures are increasingly mixing and interacting, more than ever. With the invasion of the Internet and its cyberspace technology into all aspects of modern life, the traditional norms, geographical boundaries, basic structures, social values, established lifestyles, and national heritages are holding no more. Virtually, any field of knowledge, discipline, or helping profession has many concepts, principles, and constructs that are universal in nature, and could apply and be understood anywhere in the world. However, each discipline, including psychology, has many specifics and particulars that are not readily applicable elsewhere or well suited to be used outside their place of origin. These are solely local and provisional, relevant only to the immediate context where they are designed, formulated, and produced. They usually make sense inside (not outside) their cultural contours. But if they were to be introduced or applied elsewhere, nearby or faraway, they will need serious screening, trimming, and adaptation, as well as thoughtful revisions, modifications, and alterations. Otherwise, they will remain foreign and unsuitable to the population in mind, which could be a special target audience, a minority group, a local community, or even another society or a different nation. In addition, each discipline has some aspects, theories, tools, and assumptions that are counterculture in nature and will eventually cause confusion, if not harm, when they are applied blindly and without any discernment. These are totally irrelevant and need to be omitted all together (cf. Abi-Hashem, 2014b). How do we know the difference between what is cultural-normal-natural and what is clinical-abnormal-unnatural, especially when we work cross-culturally or transnationally? The answer is by experience and by allowing ourselves to be coached and trained by local educators and caregivers. They are the indigenous experts who know enough about their own settings and mentalities and some- October 2015 ● American Psychologist Abi-Hashem, N. (2015). Revisiting Cultural Awareness and Cultural Relevancy. American Psychologist, 70 (7), 660-661. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/70/7/660/ This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. thing about ours (and where we come from and how we operate). Otherwise, good intentions and self-confidence on the part of the visiting professionals are not enough. I personally spend several months a year in Beirut, Lebanon, focusing on community service, teaching, counseling, training, crisis intervention, and trauma debriefing among various Middle Easterner populations and refugees living there, as well as interacting with professionals and educators on various levels. I have experimented with many concepts, approaches, themes, and techniques widely practiced in North America, only to find that some of them were ineffective and questionable. While the more generic principles and universal methods work nicely across the board and people relate and respond well to them, other notions, approaches, and interventions remain very awkward and foreign. They appear to be counterproductive and unfortunately do complicate the relationships as well as the outcomes. Some actually have negative side-effects! Like suggesting a strict separation-individuation process, or a sharp drawing of personal boundaries on the expense of alienating family and friends and other essential community bonding; or encouraging rigid privacy, impersonal autonomy, and total self-reliance, thus glorifying I-me-myself on the expense of we-us-together. This can destroy the fabric of communal harmony and intimate-collaborative beauty of many families, groups, communities, and societies, because individuals have full meaning and clear identity only in relationship to significant others, in a fluid interdependence and interconnectedness (rather than floating alone). Another example would be the open expression of anger and resentment. To encourage a quick verbalization of anger and hate is very foreign and shameful in many subcultures, e.g., “I hate my mother,” “I am angry at my father (or spouse),” or pushing the person to directly express and confront others publicly, as if to rub anger in their face. Indirect ways of describing and expressing negative emotions are more common in many traditions. Therefore, helping-professionals ought to be very careful and very patient with themselves and with those they attempt to serve, either across the street, across the border, or across the ocean. In the Arabic language, there is no single term or word to describe the English parallel of “culture.” Rather, several terms are used, at times, to convey the meaning of culture and to capture its overall essence, like, Hadaarah (civiliza- tion), Thihneyyah (mentality), Thakaafah (educational civility), and Turaath (living tradition). Finally, as we strive toward a better contextualization and a healthy internationalization of all social sciences, in general, and the psychological concepts, tools, methods, and therapeutic skills, in particular, let us do these with full hermeneutic integrity, professional sensitivity, and cultural humility. Surely, the results will be more effective, the experiences more meaningful, and the newfound relationships more rewarding. REFERENCES Abi-Hashem, N. (1997). Reflections on “International perspectives in psychology.” American Psychologist, 52, 569 –570. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.569.b Abi-Hashem, N. (2014a). Worldview. In D. A. Leeming (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology and religion (2nd ed., pp. 1938 –1941). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ 978-1-4614-6086-2_9357 Abi-Hashem, N. (2014b). Cross-cultural psychology and counseling: A Middle Eastern perspective. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 33, 156 –163. Christopher, J. C., Wendt, D. C., Marecek, J., & Goodman, D. M. (2014). Critical cultural awareness: Contributions to a globalizing psychology. American Psychologist, 69, 645– 655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036851 Cohen, A. B. (2009). Many forms of culture. American Psychologist, 64, 194 –204. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015308 Correspondence concerning this comment should be addressed to Naji Abi-Hashem, 14054 Wallingford Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98133. E-mail: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038965 Cultural Humility: The Cornerstone of Positive Contact With Culturally Different Individuals and Groups? Joshua N. Hook and C. Edward Watkins Jr. University of North Texas Increased globalization has resulted in increased connections between different kinds of individuals and groups, in a sense “flattening” the world (Friedman, 2007). Psychologists have been influenced by this increased globalization and, with far greater frequency than ever before, now engage with individuals and groups from a host of different nations and cultures. But increased contact alone does not necessarily undo the parochialism and ethnocentrism of psychology in the United States. As noted by Christopher, Wendt, Marecek, and Goodman (2014), “U.S. psychology remains not only overwhelmingly U.S.centric but also largely unaware of how its cultural roots shape theory and research” (Christopher et al., 2014, p. 645). Their case example about the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Sri Lanka loudly and clearly reflects that reality— demonstrating how failure to incorporate cultural considerations into helping strategies can result in wasted efforts and even bring harm to the very people that we are attempting to aid. It indeed appears that the way in which psychologists engage with culturally different individuals and groups can still be a serious problem in the delivery of competent psychological services. But why? Why is it that many psychologists— despite such increasingly diversifying opportunities for cultural contact, despite being trained and steeped in the values of multiculturalism, and despite being designated as leaders in promoting multiculturalism and positive cultural engagement— continue to seemingly struggle to positively engage with culturally different individuals and groups? And how is it that large failures, such as the response to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, could happen but a decade ago and could perhaps still happen again now? From our perspective, answers to those questions can be found in what may well be the very foundational cornerstone of any and all cultural contact: cultural humility. Although a more commonly used concept in family medicine (Falicov, 2014), cultural humility —an important component of multicultural competence and multicultural orientation— has recently begun to gain increasing traction as a vital explanatory construct and practice-crucial variable in psychological service provision (e.g., Falicov, 2014; Hook, Davis, Owen, Worthington, & Utsey, 2013; Owen, 2013). Intrapersonally, cultural humility involves a willingness and openness to reflect on one’s own self as an embedded cultural being, having an awareness of personal limitations in understanding the cultural background and viewpoints of others; interpersonally, cultural humility involves an other-oriented stance (or openness to the other) with regard to aspects of an individual’s or group’s cultural background and identity. Some of the core features of a culturally humble stance have been empirically identified as being respectful and considerate of the other; being genuinely interested in, open to exploring, and wanting to understand the other’s perspective; October 2015 ● American Psychologist Abi-Hashem, N. (2015). Revisiting Cultural Awareness and Cultural Relevancy. American Psychologist, 70 (7), 660-661. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/70/7/660/ 661