Tag Archives: multiculturalism

Teaching Diversity from an Existential Perspective

This blog was originally published on December 9, 2013 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

For years, I have heard horror stories of professors teaching diversity classes being traumatized by their
students. Included were stories of a number of experts in diversity who were passionate about teaching diversity, but no longer wanted to teach diversity courses because their course evaluations were poorer than in other classes, included personal slights, and the classrooms often felt hostile. Similarly, I’ve spoken to many students passionate about diversity that no longer felt safe bringing up the topic of diversity in classroom because of the responses from their professors and peers. This ranged from their comments being ignored, to being told to bring the issue up in the diversity class (as if this was the only place to talk about diversity), to being criticized or responded to hostilely for broaching the topic.

Photo by Louis Hoffman, PhD

Recently, a news story broke about three white male students who filed a complaint about a black female professor because they were offended about discussion of structural racism in a course, including complaints about having to talk about diversity in every class. Of course, various perspectives on what occurred have emerged since the story first was reported. However, it is becoming symbolic of the experience of many people who teach about diversity. It’s a difficult topic and without institution support as well as intentionality in cultivating an environment where these issues are discussed, it is difficult to broach the topic. For many students and professors, this means leaving an important part of who they are personally and professionally outside the classroom.

Despite some proclamations that we’ve have entered a postracial society, it is clear that much work is still needed. I have long maintained that we are not really talking about diversity if we are too comfortable. Yet, unfortunately, this discomfort easily translates to hostility with some individuals, especially when we do not cultivate a safe environment for conversations.

Existential psychology, despite its struggles in becoming more diverse and adequately discussing multicultural issues, does offer some helpful principles for teaching about multiculturalism and diversity. Below is an initial formulation of some principles of an existential approach to teaching about diversity and multiculturalism:

Human Dignity: First and foremost, an existential approach to teaching diversity and multiculturalism must begin with the recognition of the dignity of all people. Compassion, Empathy, and Understanding: Some approaches to diversity focus on accumulating knowledge; however, this is often ineffective. Instead, an existential approach is rooted in understanding that emerges through compassion and empathy for people from different cultural backgrounds.

Go Beyond Knowledge to Experience: Consistent with the previous point, it is important to not just obtain knowledge about diversity, but to also experience. No amount of knowledge can replicate the understanding and wisdom that can emerge through experience. Individuality and Commonality: An existential approach to diversity honors the commonality at the group level as well as a commonality in that we are all human. Yet, it also recognizes our uniqueness, including that we are all individuals and that there remains great variation within groups. A holistic embracing of the person recognizes and respects both aspects.

Knowledge of Differences Improves Our Ability to See People: It is not sufficient to just try to understand each individual as an individual and their own subjective experience, which is sometimes purported within existential and humanistic psychology. Without some knowledge of cultural differences, we are limited in our ability to truly see and understand some forms of difference.

Zhi Mian: Zhi Mian is a Chinese concept that can be translated as “To face directly,” meaning to face oneself, others, and life directly and honestly. An honest facing, especially when it comes to diversity, is challenging, but necessary.

Difference is Difficult: As noted, I’ve often maintained that if conversations about diversity are too easy, then you are not really talking about diversity. This is a difficult topic. If we go beyond superficial conversations, discomfort inevitably occurs at some point.

Acknowledge Limitations: It is important for professors and everyone involved in the dialogues to acknowledge their own limitations in regard to diversity. Everyone has some struggles with diversity, no matter how well one has worked to address these issues personally. Also, with the richness of diversity that exists in the world, no one could fully master knowledge and understanding of all realms of diversity.

It’s the Relationship that Changes: One of the most powerful ways to overcome prejudice is through direct relational contact. While bringing people into contact with people from different cultures may be the most effective way of overcoming the prejudice, other approaches that help to promote empathy and understanding at an experiential level, such as the use of the arts, can also be quite effective.

Achieving Diversity Requires Intentionality: It is not enough to simply say that we value diversity. If we are committed to building multicultural institutions and classrooms, there must be an ongoing commitment and intentionality.

While just an initial outline, these 10 principles drawn from principles in the existential literature
are highly relevant to teaching diversity.

~ Louis Hoffman

Existential Activism

This blog was originally published on November 29, 2012, on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

At the 2012 Existential-Humanistic Institute Conference, John Galvin presented on the topic of “Existential Activism.” It was a wonderful presentation that led to many interesting thoughts and discussions. Although I had long aspired to being socially responsible, I never considered myself an activist prior to a colleague referring to me as one. When this occurred, I was surprised. My vision of an activist was someone who spent much of their time involved in protests, marches, promoting petitions, and similar activities. I have come to recognize that this is too narrow of a definition of an “activist.”

Prior to Galvin’s presentation, I had given some thought to an existential approach to activism, and even developed a section of a course on socially engaged spirituality relevant to this topic. However, Galvin’s presentation inspired me to give some more thought to this topic.

Photo by Louis Hoffman, PhD

A Zhi main Existential Foundation for Activism

Activism, at its best, is a complex process that is about more than an issue or cause. It is rooted in an honest, direct facing of many interrelated factors. This is represented in the idea of zhi mian, a Chinese concept that means “to face directly.” Zhi mian is a unifying concept that calls for people to face themselves, others, and life directly while emphasizing that facing each one of these requires simultaneous facing of the others.

Facing life directly and honestly is frequently what inspires one to activism. For example, much of the world has turned a blind eye to the horrible conditions in Darfur. When one becomes aware of what is really occurring in Darfur, many feel compelled to speak out for the many who are suffering in this region and begin to take action.

Authentic activism also calls us to face others directly. Too often activism is associated with anger; however, at its best, it is rooted in empathy. There are two aspects of this empathy; however, one is frequently neglected. It is easy to recognize the need for empathy for the individuals who are suffering, but we must also consider the importance of empathy for individuals or groups holding a different perspective that we seek to persuade through our advocacy. Some times this means empathy for the people occupying the role of oppressor. I will speak to this aspect of empathy in more detail shortly.

Existential activism also emphasizes facing oneself directly when engaging in activism. In particular, there are at least two important considerations of this aspect of zhi mian. First, it is important to consider why one is drawn to the particular issue and the motivation for advocating for it. Individuals often are drawn to be an activist for causes that are close to their heart. While people are often more effective advocating for issues they are passionate about, it is easy for this to cloud one’s judgment at times. Regular, honest self-reflection is vital in being an effective activist.

Second, it is necessary to face oneself directly regarding what one hopes to achieve through activism. It is easy for egos to get intertwined with causes, especially when one begins gaining some recognition for his or her activism. Shifting the focus from advocating for a cause to promoting oneself impedes effectiveness and often introduces some destructive elements.

Activism without an Enemy

What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself.

(Becker, 1973, p. 204)

This quote by Ernest Becker is challenging for activism, especially if we interpret “kill” metaphorically. Activism tends to be activism against something, someone, or some group. In the discussion following Galvin’s presentation, I commented that there is a big difference between an activism for something, as opposed to an activism against something. When advocating against, too often we quickly turn those who we are advocating against into the enemy. We assume negative motives, we disconnect from our empathy, and we blind our self to any counter arguments that may be valid. As Sam Keen (1991) states, “In the beginning, we create the enemy. Before the weapon comes the image. We think others to death and then invent the battleaxe or ballistic missiles with which to actually kill them. Propaganda precedes technology” (p. 198). Keen goes on to state that the true heroes are those who can look inside themselves, acknowledging their own shadow elements and potential for evil. This skill is necessary for the activist.

Existential activism should be rooted in a bold empathy, one that is courageous enough to take an empathic approach to the oppressor as well as the victim. When this approach is taken, it helps the activist have greater sensitivity and wisdom when engaging those who disagree with our perspective on the cause we are advocating for.

Politics provides many examples of this. As is evident, there are good people on both (or many) sides of most political issues. Yet, in contemporary partisan politics, the tendency is to assume negative motivations on the part of those who disagree with our viewpoint and quickly turn them into the enemy instead of partners with a different perspective about how to improve conditions in our country. This is too easy. Furthermore, this stance is not one that is effective in most situations.

Activists are called to go beyond selective empathy, to engaging the world with an empathic stance. This is not to say there are not times when it is necessary to condemn individuals, groups, or acts as evil. Clearly, there are times to advocate against. However, this is not our first calling. Our first calling it to understand empathically, to allow people and groups to be innocent until proven guilty, and to seek change through compassion before condemnation.

Systemic Understanding

Although existential psychology has not always given adequate attention to systemic issues, it is important to do so when considering existential activism. Activism always occurs in a context, and good activism should always take into consideration how best to advocate within a particular context.

I worry that activism too often seeks extremist ends without an openness to compromise. It has a tendency to seek big changes in quick time frames. Often, this is not how effective change occurs within a system. When change occurs too quickly or too radically, it can create a lack of stability that can, in some instances, be ineffective and even dangerous. Of course, there are also times when quick or radical change is what is necessary. Yet, often the most successful forms of activism will promote a gradual, sustained change over time that allows for compromise and respects the interconnected, complex systemic issues.

Content and Process

In psychotherapy, we often separate content from process. The same is important when considering activism. Existential activism can inform both content and process. It helps us identify important causes, but it can also help us give consideration as to how to go about activism.

Learning to be an effective activist is challenging and complex in ways quite similar to becoming an effective psychotherapist. There is a great deal of knowledge needed that must be continually updated in order to be an effective activist. There are also challenging interpersonal and leadership skills, and a broader awareness of the interplay between individual, group, and larger social systems, which need to be developed and refined over time. I am thankful for places like Saybrook University, and their Social Transformation Concentration, that helps prepare individuals for this complex calling.

Conclusion

Existential activism is bold enough to speak the truth and, when necessary, confront evil while remaining compassionate enough not to create enemies through disagreement. It is honest enough to recognize when our motivations shift from our ego to our heart and when our own issues may harm our cause. Existential activism is audacious enough to take an empathic stance toward various sides and individuals involved with the issue, not just those who share our perspective. It is courageous enough to continually confront ourselves as we confront others. Existential activism is patient enough to let change gradually unfold and wise enough to adjust our approach to activism to the context. Finally, existential activism is humble enough to always remember the root of activism is beyond us.

Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. The Free Press.

Keen, S. (1991). The enemy maker. In C. Zweig & J. Abrams (Eds.), Meeting the shadow: The hidden power of the dark side of human nature (pp. 197201). Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

Diversity: Why We Can’t Stop Talking

This blog was originally published March 18, 2014 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

“We don’t need to talk about diversity; we’ve got that covered.” Whenever I hear these or similar words, I immediately am skeptical and on guard. In fact, I would say that statements of this sentiment are among the most common microaggressions in contemporary culture. When it comes to diversity, we never have it covered; it’s a work in progress at best.

Even where we expect institutions to be good at diversity, there are still significant problems. Higher education has been one of the fields voicing the strongest commitments to multiculturalism and diversity. Yet, in the last several months, there have been a number of significant stories that evidence failures in the academy when it comes to diversity. If our institutions preparing the next generation of leaders are failing on diversity, it will be that much more difficult to actualize the change that is needed.

In the Fall of 2013, UCLA students produced a video voicing concern about the underrepresentation of African American males at UCLA. The video noted that 65 percent of the African American
males were undergraduate athletes. More recently, Harvard students were featured in a photo campaign titled, “I, too, am Harvard,” about their experiences at Harvard. The photo campaign reflected the pervasiveness of the microaggressions and racism experienced by many students at Harvard.

Photograph taken by Louis Hoffman, PhD

The Tyranny of Excuses

When pointing out statistics and demographics about diversity problems, it is common to quickly be met with excuses. When advocating for increasing diversity at a previous place of employment the response was, “We cannot get qualified students and faculty to apply.” This is not an excuse, but an indictment. If recruiting diversity is difficult, one must consider systemic issues that may be contributing to this problem. For example, it should be considered where the recruiting is occurring. Additionally, it is important to examine if there are aspects of the organizational culture or the way that the organization presents itself that discourages diversity in subtle ways.

Another common excuse for the lack of diversity is the historical context. When voicing concern about the imbalance between men and women in awards, fellows, and board members within the Society for Humanistic Psychology, this occasionally was met with the response that this is just due to history, suggesting that it is really not a current issue of concern. There is a degree of truth in that there is a historical context that helps explain aspects of the discrepancy. However, when history is used to justify, then it can easily become an excuse.

Tyrannies of Resistance

It is customary that the president of the Society for Humanistic Psychology sets the theme for the society’s program at the American Psychological Association. During my year as president, I chose a theme related to diversity. After selecting a diversity theme, I received an email voicing concern that priority would be given to people representing diversity instead of the quality of the proposals. Nothing was ever said suggesting the privileging of proposals by people representing diversity would occur. It was merely an assumption.

While it would be unfair to assume the reason this particular concern was voiced, it was similar to common resistances. First, it is common for people to fear the loss of their privilege. When people become accustom to privilege, it is natural to have some anxiety about losing it. I admit, as a White male of privilege, I have experienced this fear at times. I do my best to remain mindful of these fears when they occur so that I can avoid responding and acting based upon them.

Second, it is often assumed that the only way individuals representing diversity will obtain jobs or have proposals or papers accepted is if they are given special consideration. This is quite different than the fear of loss of privilege as it frequently reflects a deeply negative view of people from particular groups, viewing them as inferior or lesser than in some essential ways. This is often reinforced when cultural differences are reflected in writing and scholarship styles. Common academic standards reflect cultural biases. It is often argued that the more objective, distanced style of scholarly writing is just good writing, which denies the cultural preferences implicit any writing styles. Good, scholarly writing can come in many styles and varieties. The claim of universal standards of what is good can be used as a form of resistance and justification.

Resistance comes in many other forms, too. It is commonly advocated that as long as we have a variety of ideas, theoretical approaches, or epistemologies, that we do not have to consider representation. Resistance can come in fears of a change in the organizational culture or fear of the introduction of conflict. Another common form of resistance is tokenism, which is often represented in trying to look more diverse without really addressing the deeper forms of diversity. As an example of this, when serving on a search committee that was considering the application of an impressive candidate who happened to be a woman of color, a person on the search committee commented, “If only she was disabled.” I have heard variations of this extremely offensive comment in too many settings. The implicit message is that if we can represent multiple forms of diversity in one individual then we do not have to risk more uncomfortable changes that could be part of becoming more broadly diverse.

Conclusion

We have a long way to go. Each time I reflect on the progress that has been made in regard to diversity, I can’t help coming back to this simple, evident realization: We have a long way to go. I’m sure some would read the examples I mention here and quickly dismiss them saying that they are anecdotal and not representative. Yet, that is not my experience. I witness them too often.

I often find myself getting weary of advocating for diversity and become tempted to just back off. It would be so much easier. Yet, I can’t consider this long before realizing that my weariness cannot compare to weariness of so many for whom this reality is not something they can choose to back off from—it is their daily reality. We cannot stop talking. We cannot stop advocating. I am convinced that if we stop advocating and fighting for diversity issues, we will regress, and it is sure to get worse. The only path is forward or backward; there is no standing still.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD