Fr. Fidel P. Palísoc, M.A. (Counseling), S.T.D., J.C.D.
Cultural competence, defined by Sue (2001) as the ability to engage in actions or create conditions that maximize the optimal development of client and client systems, is an important topic in au courant counseling circles and service groups that are sensitive to cultural differences. As a matter of justice in general and of human rights in particular, it is right and just that cultural competence be paid attention to and practised.
No one is born culturally competent. The harsh reality is that many, if not all, have been trained and socialized to be culturally incompetent. “Don’t talk to strangers” is a common illustration of this reality. The more serious realities are the continuing existence of blatant discrimination against foreigners. News items about foreign workers being actively discriminated against are too numerous to cite. For the sad reality is that “[t]oo often, lip service is given to multicultural concerns, without the commitment to translate them into ethical standards and see that they become part of the accreditation criteria” (Sue et al., 1992, 480).
Sue et al. (1982, 1992) have laid the foundations in the discussion on cultural competence. Sue (2001) refined the Multiple Dimensions of Cultural Competence (MDCC). Because cultural competence is a developmental process, Cross’ (2001) cultural competence continuum, even though conceptually applied specifically to agencies, is a wonderful contribution to the intelligent discussion on cultural competence.
Cross’ (2001) cultural competence continuum has five points. King et al. (no date, In http://www.air-dc.org/cecp/cultural/Q_integrated.htm) briefly enumerated “six possibilities” along the cultural competence continuum. But according to Susan E. Collins, Program Director of the NYS Citizens’ Coalition for Children, Inc., “there are only five points along the [cultural competence] continuum” (personal communication, July 20, 2004). The five points are 1) cultural destructiveness, 2) cultural incapacity, 3) cultural blindness, 4) cultural pre-competence, and 5) advanced cultural competence or proficiency.
Cultural destructiveness is characterized by the presence of attitudes, policies and practices that are destructive to cultures and consequently to the individuals within the culture. Examples are programs which actively participate in cultural genocide.
Cultural incapacity is characterized by extreme bias, belief in the racial superiority of the subdominant group, and a condescending posture towards “lesser” races. Ignorance and an unrealistic fear of people of whatever color exist. Discrimination is a tell-tale sign of cultural incapacity. News about this are too numerous for citation. The latest is the is the murder of a Mexican immigrant in Pennsylvania (cf. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110223/ap_on_re_us/us_ immigrant_killing_students (Accessed February 24, 2011 at 15:37 Hours).
Cultural blindness is characterized by the belief that helping approaches traditionally used by the dominant culture are universally applicable. There is an expressed philosophy of being unbiased. The assumption is that color or culture makes no difference and that all people are the same. Consequently, cultural strengths are ignored. Assimilation is discouraged. The “victims” are blamed for their problems. Outcome is usually measured by how closely the client approximates a middle class non-minority existence.
“It has been suggested that at best, most human service agencies providing services to children and families fall between the cultural incapacity and cultural blindness on the continuum.” (King et al., no date, In http://www/.air-dc.org/cecp/cultural/Q_integrated.htm).
Cultural pre-competence is characterized by acceptance and respect for difference, continuing self-assessment regarding culture, careful attention to the dynamics of difference, continuous expansion of cultural knowledge and resources, and a variety of adaptations to service models in order to meet the needs of minority populations. The culturally pre-competent agency works to hire unbiased employees, seeks advice and consultation from the minority communities, and actively decides what it is and is not capable of providing to minority clients.
Advanced cultural competence or proficiency holds culture in high esteem. It seeks to add to the knowledge base of culturally competent practice by conducting research, developing new therapeutic approaches based on culture, and publishing and disseminating the results of demonstration projects. It advocates for cultural competence throughout the system and improved relations between cultures throughout society.
Does the developmental process jump from cultural pre-competence (point 4) to advanced cultural competence (point 5)? Where is “cultural competence” in this cultural competence continuum? How can these concepts be applied to individuals? What will it take to design and develop an instrument using Cross’ concepts? What will it take to make a research determining the growth of individuals in cultural competence using this instrument? How will Filipinos fare in this process? Are the individuals in the “minority populations” at the receiving end of cultural competence as implied in cultural pre- competence? Are there empirical data to support this?
References
Cross. T. L. 2001. “Cultural competence continuum.” In www.nysccc.org/T-Rarts/CultCompCont.html (Accessed July 19 and 26, 2004).
King, M. A., A. Sims, and D. Osher. no date. “How is cultural competence integrated in education?” In http://www.air-dc.org/cecp/cultural/Q_integrated.htm. (Accessed July 12 and 26, 2004).
Sue, D. W., J. E. Bernier, A. Durran, L. Feinberg, P. Pedersen, E. J. Smith, and E. Vasquez-Nuttall. 1982. “Cross-cultural counseling competencies.” The Counseling Psychologist 10: 45-52.
Sue, D. W., P. Arredondo, and R. McDavis. 1992. “Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession.” Journal of Counseling and Development 70: 477-486.
Sue, D. E. 2001. “Multitudinal facets of cultural competence.” The Counseling Psychologist 29: 790-821.
“Saudi slammed for treating OFWs like slaves.” Philippine Daily Inquirer. July 16, 2004: A1, A9.
“Brains not welcome here – The difficulty of changing a policy that drives talent away.” The Economist. May 1, 2004: 48.
No comments:
Post a Comment