Counseling approaches that operate racial, ethnic, and national lines promote a strong multicultural view and approach
Counseling approaches to racial, ethnic and national lines (generally referred to as multicultural counseling) define the premise that the same counseling and therapy techniques do not necessarily apply to all clients, owing to the differences in national and ethnic backgrounds, as well as gender differences. In the US, for instance, surveys have shown that clients from minority ethnic groups are likely not to seek counseling services. Many have attributed this trend to the ethnocentric nature of the activity, arguably favoring the white population, while alienating those from the minority groups (CDC, 2011, p.5). Indeed, people from different cultures have their own behaviors (including in communication). In high-context cultures, for example in China and most of East Asia, people do not express their thoughts directly. Rather, they tend to imply the meaning by facial expressions, gestures and tactful use of words, among other techniques (Spenser-Rogers et al., 2009, p.30). However, multicultural counseling approaches are not only about the field of counseling alone. They involve researching to understand other cultures and, therefore, promote a strong multicultural view and approach to other areas.
A classic mistake that a crisis interventionist might make would be to believe that all individuals should reach consensus within their own reference group, community, clan, or tribe before intervention occurs
It is not easy to reach a consensus. In fact, it is due to the lack of a consensus or inability to reach one where a crisis arises in the first place and, therefore, there appears the need for intervention. When a consensus has been reached, we reached a resolution. But, according to James (2007), finding a resolution (which may not be achieved) is not the purpose of intervention. Rather, the objective of the intervention is management; that is, finding a way to leverage the differences to work together in a healthy relationship. Trying hard to reach a consensus means assuming that crisis is a bad thing. On the other hand, crises can have a positive effect.
A focused multicultural view looks at multicultural counseling in relation to “visible and racial ethnic minorities”
Indeed, one challenge that a multicultural counseling approach faces has to do with the difficulty in determining the various ethnic and racial or cultural groups. Cokley (2007, cited in James, 2007), for example, discusses the difficulty in defining the terms “ethnicity, race, ethnic and racial identity, and culture” (p.36). So far, it appears that most people have been referred to one ethnic, racial and/or cultural group based on visible characteristics. But there is much more in one’s ethnic, racial ad/or cultural belonging than just the visible characteristics and a multicultural approach that takes this perspective is not focused enough. There should be another way to do this, but finding such a criterion is the challenge that multicultural counseling still faces.
A high-context culture defines who belongs to the group
High-context cultures uphold the group above the individual. This is part of the concept of collectivism; that is, “the group binds and mutually obligates individuals, that the personal is simply… subordinate to it” (Fischer et al., 2009, p.188). When communicating, individuals in high-context cultures consider places and feelings of the ‘other’ more than that of the ‘I’. This is why ‘saving face’ is an important factor of the high-context culture. In other words, one must not do and/or say what may embarrass others (cause them to lose face). A crisis interventionist must remember that a person’s self esteem and worth are tied to the group and, therefore, emphasize this status of the group over the individual (Fischer et al., 2009, p.196).
While the ecology of a culture is important, it appears to play a little role in how a crisis is handled or resolved
Generally, ecology refers to the “living environment in which intervention occurs” (James, 2007, p.35). These include factors related to weather (such as temperature) and the facilities available to balance these ecological factors (such as air conditioners in hot weather and the availability of power in an evacuation center, among others). Indeed, ecology plays an important role in the intervention process. Taking a person away from their usual surrounding (physically and/or culturally) may affect what they do and how they do it. This influences intervention strategies used and whether or not a crisis is well managed, and, if the crisis is managed, that the challenges are faced in the process.
References
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2011). Health Disparities and Inequalities Report. United States: MMWR; 60, 1-114
Fischer, R., Ferreira, M. C., Assmar, E., Redford, P., Harb, C., Glazer, S., et al. (2009). Individualism–Collectivism as Descriptive Norms: Development of a Subjective Norm Approach to Culture Measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40,187–213
James, R.K. (2007). Crisis Intervention Strategies, (6th ed.), London: Cengage Learning.
Spencer-Rogers, J., Boucher, H.C., Mori, S.C., Wang, L. & Peng, K. (2009). The Dialectical Self-Concept: Contradiction, Change, and Holism in East Asian Cultures, Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 35, 29-44.