RAISING MULTIRACIAL AWARENESS IN FAMILY THERAPY THROUGH CRITICAL CONVERSATIONS

October 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 399

RAISING MULTIRACIAL AWARENESS IN FAMILY THERAPY THROUGH CRITICAL CONVERSATIONS

Teresa McDowellUniversity of Connecticut

Lucrezia IngogliaGreater Lakes Mental Healthcare

Takiko SerizawaFamily Service Associates

Christina HollandBehavioral Medicine Clinic

John Wayne Dashiell, Jr.Tacoma, Washington

Christopher StevensRenton Area Youth and Family Services

Multiracial families are uniquely affected by racial dynamics in U.S. society. Family therapists must be prepared to meet the needs of this growing population and to support racial equity. This article includes an overview of literature related to being multiracial and offers a framework for working with multiracial identity development in therapy. A critical conversation approach to working with multiracial identity is shared along with case examples. The authors’ experiences developing the model via a practitioner inquiry group are highlighted. Multiracial individuals and families are one of the fastest growing populations in the U.S., yet this

group is often silenced or marginalized in discussions about race (Root, 1996). In this article, we argue that as marriage and family therapists (MFTs), it is imperative that we develop the awareness, knowledge, and skills necessary to work with multiracial clients effectively (Rockquemore & Lazsloffy, 2003). This includes being able to engage multiracial families in critical conversations about race, racism, and racial identity.

In recent years, family therapists have been increasingly concerned about how the sociopolitical dynamics of group membership, including how race, gender, ethnicity, abilities, sexual orientation, and class intersect in complex ways to influence our lives significantly (Falicov, 2003). This has included a growing interest in interracial relationships (Killian, 2001, 2002), biracial youth and families (Milan & Keiley, 2000), and mixed-race identity (Rockquemore & Lazsloffy, 2003). We echo these efforts by acknowledging the influence of social, historical, political, and local contexts on multiracial identity and identity choices. We contribute by advocating for the use of critical conversations (Freire, 1970; Korin, 1994) in ways that

Journal of Marital and Family TherapyOctober 2005, Vol. 31, No. 4, 399–411

Teresa McDowell, EdD, School of Family Studies, University of Connecticut; Lucrezia Ingoglia, MA, Greater Lakes Mental Healthcare, Tacoma, WA, Takiko Seizawa, MA, Family Service Associates, San Antonio, TX; Christina Holland, MA, Behavioral Medicine Clinic, Olympia, WA; Wayne Dashiell Jr., MA, Tacoma, WA; Christopher Stevens, MA, Renton Youth and Family Services, Renton, WA.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Teresa McDowell, EdD, School of Family Studies, Unit 2058, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, 06269. E-mail: [email protected]

400 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY October 2005

highlight systemic cognitive development (Rigazio-DiGilio, 2000; Rigazio-DiGilio, Daniels, & Ivey, 1997) in order to enhance multiracial identity choices and development.

As clinician–inquirers working together to investigate multiracial identity, we identify ourselves as a multiracial/multinational team. Although, as individuals, we draw together from different racial, national, and gender identity locations, we share a common interest in supporting racial equity. We are each engaged in our own ongoing racial identity development, which includes increasing our awareness of the impact of race relations in order to challenge racism more effectively (McDowell & Jeris, 2004). This is reflected in the examples that follow.

In this article, we first examine areas that may be germane to working with multiracial families. Next we share ideas about multiracial identity development and multiracial identity choices. Then we describe a model for engaging clients in critical conversations (Freire, 1970; Korin, 1994) aimed at increasing the social awareness and critical reflection necessary for families and individuals to negotiate the complex social territory of being multiracial effectively. We include an explanation of how we conceptualize the developmental aspects of multiracial identity formation (Rigazio-DiGilio, 2000; Rigazio-DiGilio et al., 1997). Throughout the article, we offer examples of our work and attempt to provide a transparent account of our journey as an inquiry group engaged in exploring multiracial issues in therapy. Our goals for this article include raising therapists’ awareness of multiracial issues and offering an approach to racial identity development that can be integrated into therapy with multiracial individuals and families.

We use the term multiracial to refer to those of all racial mixes, including biracial (Root, 1996). We acknowledge that we often use terms that reflect ethnicity and/or combine ethnicity with race to describe mixed- or single-group heritage of team members and clients. This reflects each person’s preferred self-description. We further acknowledge that multiracial families are not monolithic, and that by discussing multiracial identity, we risk generalizing a highly heterogeneous population. Conversely, a strong argument has been made that there is enough shared experience among multiracial people in the U.S. to create meaningful connections from a commonly held identity location (Nakashima, 1996). We also recognize that not all multiracial individuals and relationships experience the same degree of discrimination. For example, multiracial families whose members share physical characteristics that closely reflect European ancestry are likely to experience less disfavor (Root, 1996). It is with these precautions that we attempt to engage in a meaningful discussion about the uniqueness of multiracial identity in the U.S. at this particular time in history.

OUR INQUIRY GROUP

Our inquiry group met through participation in a MFT master’s degree program in which the first author was teaching and the remaining authors were students. During the MFT training program, the first author facilitated a 15-week racial dialogue group. Our inquiry group emerged at the end of the dialogue group with the goal of exploring specific ways of working in therapy around issues of race and racism. Our experience suggested that racial knowledge and awareness, which were integrated into course content and the racial dialogue group, do not necessarily or adequately translate into clinical skill. We wanted time to work together as clinicians facing day-to-day practice issues related to race.

Our interest turned specifically to multiracial identity after an incident at a family therapy conference during which workshop participants used terms such as “Oreo” to refer to a multiracial public figure. This was deeply disturbing and particularly emotional for multiracial members of our group who had gone to the conference expecting to find a professional home place (hooks, 1994). Unintentional as these comments may have been, they had high impact and mobilized members of the group to seek out literature, gather examples from our own clinical work, and struggle together to find effective ways to raise multiracial awareness among ourselves, our clients, and our colleagues.

Our group met on a regular basis to discuss our clinical work, our ongoing review of the literature, our own racial experiences, and ideas about how to engage in meaningful therapeutic conversations about race, racism, and multiracial identity. We were interested in how our growing understanding of the sociopolitical and historical significance of race in the U.S. could inform our therapeutic interventions and be of use to


our clients. We experienced moments of confusion, excitement, pain, uncertainty, empathy, and joy. The process was often “messy” in that we did not always have a clear direction or understanding of how to proceed. At the same time, we shared moments of being deeply moved by group members describing their own struggles and the experiences of their clients relative to race and racism. In retrospect, what we set out to do (i.e., apply a broad social awareness of racial dynamics to particular encounters with clients) had a significant impact on our individual racial awareness, knowledge, and skill, as well as on our relationships with each other. Throughout this article, we offer examples of what we shared with each other, our work with clients, and how we came to understand our group process.

THERAPEUTIC CONCERNS

Issues multiracial clients bring to therapy may or may not be related to their racial identity (Wehrly, Kenney, & Kenney, 1999). Being multiracial in and of itself does not lead to emotional or relational problems. Negative societal reactions to one’s race and internalized racism, however, are problems that can deeply affect the well being of multiracial clients and may play an integral role in solving presenting problems. In the words of Milan and Keiley (2000):

The biracial child and family will meet with disfavor—if not outright prejudice—quite regularly. Thus, although many interracial families who enter treatment will do so for reasons other than race, most will have experienced social disapproval. Consequently, these clients are likely to possess some memories of unkind stares, questioning by others, family disapproval, feelings of uncertainty and discomfort, or outright racism. (p. 310)

Becoming aware of the societal forces contributing to racial dynamics is an important part of multiracial individuals learning to deal with prejudice and discrimination (Bendetto & Olisky, 2001). In a society that promotes homogamy, interracial couples often face overt and covert racism from society at large, as well as resistance to their unions by family and friends (Killian, 2001, 2002). Multiracial families may experience particular challenges in these arenas, both because some members may underrespond to racism via their majority status (Killian, 2001, 2002), and because being multiracial invites unique challenges that parents may or may not have faced themselves. For example, an African American parent who fought for Black solidarity during the Civil Rights Movement may be uncertain about how to guide his Black–White child; or a White wife may underestimate the impact of racism on her Native American partner and multiracial children.

Deconstructing racist narratives by placing race within historical, social, relational, and political contexts can be fundamental in combating the effects of racism and empowering multiracial identity choice (Killian, 2001, 2002; Milan & Keiley, 2000; Rockquemore & Laszloffy, 2003). Moreover, taboos against openly discussing race and a reluctance to look back at our history of racial oppression and violence (Killian, 2002) make these therapeutic discussions both challenging and essential. We have found that, as therapists, our knowledge and willingness to enter these conversations with clients reflects our own racial identity development. For example, early in our work we were often uncertain about how and when to introduce racial issues in therapy. Some of us were able to do this with greater ease than others depending on life experience, social location, and racial identity development. As we became more racially aware and gained experience talking about racial issues with each other, we each became better able to talk about race with clients.

Although not necessarily the case for all multiracial families and individuals, many report suffering ongoing social invalidation of their identities (Rockquemore & Laszloffy, 2003) and relationships. For example, a Spanish–Filipino–Chinese–Native American on our team, Christopher, shared his experience of walking several steps behind his White mother at a shopping center when he was a teenager. A stranger approached his mother to warn her that she was being followed. This example demonstrates not only the myth of danger that is frequently associated with young men of color, but the assumption that families are not comprised of people of different races.

According to McRoy and Hall (1996), “Most problems confronted by individuals who encounter


ethnic identity issues tend to emanate from society’s need for rigid racial classifications” (p. 74), This need for classification is reflected by the way multiracial identity is commonly questioned due to skin color and other physical characteristics not easily placed into a single racial category. As noted by Wehrly et al. (1999), “Through overt questions such as ‘What are you?’ or ‘Who are you?’ and covert communications such as quizzical staring, multiracial children learn that they do not ‘fit traditional patterns of racial identi-fication’” (p. 55).

Multiracial families must be able to provide the kind of emotional support and awareness necessary for their members to challenge these rigid boundaries. This requires the ability to have open discussions about racial dynamics, to dismantle racial stereotypes, and to develop effective problem-solving strategies (Killian, 2002; Wehrly et al., 1999). Likewise, exploring cultural heritages is often an important part of multiracial identity formation. Therapy can play an important role in opening space for exploring these multiplicities.

MULTIRACIAL IDENTITY

Early racial identity models relied on the idea that development is linear, predictable, and can be organized into stages. Furthermore, these models relied on the assumption that successful movement through each stage is necessary for individuals to achieve a predetermined state of positive racial identity. Most of these models focused on monoracial identity, primarily Black (e.g., Cross, 1971) and White identity development (e.g., Helms, 1990). In an attempt to describe the unique experiences of those who identify with more than one race, several theorists developed biracial identity models (e.g., Gibbs, 1989; Kerwin-Ponterotto, 1995; Parham & Helms, 1985; Poston, 1990). Most of these theorists suggested that it is necessary to embrace all of one’s racial heritages to reach a healthy multiracial identity. For example, Poston’s (1990) model includes four stages that biracial individuals pass through toward a final stage of wholeness, or “integration.” Rockquemore and Laszloffy (2003) argued that this assumption merely replaces the earlier essentialist assumption that multiracial individuals should accept a single, non-White identity. Contemporary work on multiracial identity encourages a more complex consideration of identity in general, as well as the acknowledgment of multiracial identity choices.

An Ecological Framework Recently, theorists have proposed that identity is embedded in sociopolitical context and that racial

identity is best understood as part of a more complex developmental process that occurs across the lifespan (Hall, 2000). According to Root (2002), there are multiple, legitimate multiracial identities that may be flexibly chosen depending on social context. Likewise, there are many, often intersecting, factors that contribute to identity. In fact, racial identity is part of a complex network of intersecting identities that is contextually relevant and fluid. Root (2002) also suggested that racial identity is mitigated by individual personality, including one’s social skills, unique talents, emotions, and intellect. Phenotype is relevant because group membership is often assigned and access to privilege granted based on skin color, hair texture, and facial type. Interpersonal and familial relationships are also important. Highly influential are: parents’ racial identities; relationships with parents, siblings, extended family, and peers; generational considerations; parents’ nativity; language spoken at home; given names; and family values. On a broader social level, identity is influenced by geographical region; local communities; openness of groups to accept multiracial members; agendas of loyalty and solidarity; immigration processes; and social, economic, and political consequences of racial group membership (Root, 2002).

For example, a Vietnamese–European American on our team, Christina, shared how her own racial heritage was a constant reminder to her Vietnamese family and community of the painful conflict between two countries. She was labeled “My Lai”—a term used for mixed race children that referred to the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, where U.S. troops murdered an entire village of innocents. She was, at the same time, a source of pride to her family because she was pretty, spoke English well, and was well accepted at school (Fang, McDowell, & Holland, in press). As with most multiracial individuals, Christina negotiated the process of racial identity development within a complex political, familial, and personal context.


Identity Choices Root (2002) proposed that there are at least five viable choices or resolutions of multiracial identity.

One alternative is to accept the racial identity assigned by society. Accepting an assigned identity without critical examination limits choice and may perpetuate racial misconceptions. This is particularly true as others often assign identity to multiracial individuals based on the “one drop rule” and/or the common belief that everyone is monoracial. A second choice is to identify with a single racial group other than White. This may or may not be the same group in which one was raised or to which one is ascribed by society. The choice itself may or may not be politically driven, and it does not preclude one from being questioned regarding “racial authenticity” when negotiating identity in new settings. A third choice is to identify with more than one racial group. This is becoming increasingly available because of changing media images and less overt racism in recent years. This choice can be misunderstood as failing to recognize the political meaning of race or not supporting antiracist agendas. Those who make this choice from a critically aware stance, however, may “understand that solidarity and connection can transcend color and that support for social justice can come in all colors” (Root, 2002, p. 24). A fourth choice is to identify simply as multiracial or as mixed race without signifying specific races. This choice accentuates an identity that is uniquely held by those who are multiracial, and it is often a way to refuse being fractioned. Those who make this identity choice may be accused of being naïve or ashamed of their heritage. This choice may also be political in support of a developing multiracial community. A fifth choice for some—particularly those with European physical features—is to identify as White. Those who are isolated from and/or feel no connection to their non-White heritage may find this a viable choice. When made uncritically, however, this choice may reflect the consequence of negative family dynamics being racialized in ways that lead individuals to stereotype and reject a parent’s racial group. Each of these resolutions can be positive if the individual is happy with the identity, does not have to alter his/her basic personality, has family support, does not feel the need to deny racial heritage, and does not feel marginalized by the choice (Root, 2002). An additional choice has been proposed by those who argue the value of refusing to be racially defined or categorized in an attempt to dismantle the oppressive social construction of race. These individuals identify as being part of the “human race” and/or as “citizens of the world” (Nakashima, 1996).

There are multiple factors that contribute to these choices at any given time. What it means to be multiracial can be in flux because of ongoing societal change, as well as individual experience and development. Multiracial individuals may choose at different times in their lives to strengthen racial group ties of one or more families, explore multiracial identity, and/or challenge racial ideology itself (Nakashima, 1996). When deciding how to identify one’s self, any of the choices listed above might be made depending on who is asking and why. Likewise, how one racially identifies to others in any given context may differ from one’s personal racial self-identification, creating dissonance between public and private identities. Local milieus are also highly influential both because multiracial individuals may have at least some choice about which parts of their heritage to highlight at any given time, and because ascribed racial identity may vary across contexts. In fact, identity choices can be fluid and are often determined by circumstances and situational context (Tashiro, 2002).

The therapeutic context is no exception. For example, an African–European–Native American on our team, Wayne, was working with a young African American man, James, who was failing high school. As he talked with James, Wayne privileged his African American heritage by sharing his own experience of not learning about Black history until he was in college. James identified closely with this, sharing his frustration at only learning about “White people” in school. Wayne was able to use his knowledge of race relations to talk with James about the history of African Americans being disallowed educationally in the U.S. Through ongoing critical conversations (described below) James began to take action. He pointed out to a teacher that the only poster in the school that depicted an African American was one that warned against prison, and he successfully argued for it to be replaced with one of Martin Luther King, Jr. He also began finding ways to make his own education more meaningful, including writing his term papers about historical Black figures.

We believe the “ideal” of multiracial identity development is freedom to make active and informed multiracial identity choices. This goal involves a process of self-emancipation from internalized racial


myths and cultural constraints that maintain the hegemony of racial inequity. The process can be facilitated in therapy by collaboratively and critically interrogating the political, relational, and personal aspects of racial identification. For example, in the case described below, 16-year-old Hector made frequent racist remarks about Mexicans/Mexican Americans and was ambivalent about this part of his own multiracial identity. He was simultaneously offended when strangers insulted persons of Mexican heritage. The therapist in the case example was able to help Hector understand how the social dynamics of racism influenced his relationships with friends and how he felt about himself. Individuals and families become better able to engage in this process over time as individual members develop cognitively and emotionally in relationship to racial experience, and relational systems are able to co-construct new meanings around racial identity.

Developmental ProcessesMultiracial individuals and families enter therapy at all levels of cognitive development. Therapists

must be able to work within the cognitive abilities of clients while attempting to expand the limits of these constraints to increase social and self-awareness. This is an ongoing process within multiracial families as those with more sophisticated understanding of racial dynamics (e.g., parents, older siblings, other adults) facilitate the growth of those who are less aware. Systemic Cognitive Developmental Theory (SCDT) suggests that development is an idiosyncratic process in which each person and collective system co-constructs unique worldviews that develop within person–environment dialectic transaction (Rigazio-DiGilio, 2000; Rigazio-DiGilio et al., 1997). According to SCDT, change occurs in cognitive, affective, and interactional complexity in a nonhierarchical, nonlinear, recursive manner. Developmental impasses reflect incongruence between worldviews and contextual demands. Although Piaget informs the model, levels or stages of development are rejected in favor of “processing styles” or “orientations” to allow for a more holistic, systemic approach. Four styles/orientations are identified in SCDT: sensorimotor/elemental, concrete/situational, formal/reflective, and dialectic/systemic. The sensorimotor/elemental orientation includes personal feelings and experience. The concrete/situational orientation involves one’s ability to describe actions and events. The formal/reflective orientation involves the ability to recognize recurring patterns and synthesize multiple perspectives. The dialectic/systemic orientation involves the ability to recognize the influence of larger systemic forces, including extrafamilial and sociopolitical. Access to all four orientations and the ability to fully explore each optimally contributes to development. SCDT suggests therapists help clients explore all four orientations in ways that promote “horizontal” and “vertical” development. Horizontal development involves broadening access to and use of resources within an orientation. Vertical development involves expanding access and use of resources across orientations, targeting those orientations that are underutilized or least familiar. According to SCDT, individuals tend to operate out of a predominant orientation, which may limit their ability to effectively solve some problems.

Rigazio-Digilio and Ivey (1995) and Rigazio-Digilio (2000) argued for the fit of SCDT with multicultural or culture-centered therapy. We have used their ideas to inform therapy in ways that encourage client–therapist systems to explore multiracial identity and experience from a developmental perspective. As we engage clients in critical conversations, we attempt to explore all four orientations in depth to promote awareness and choice (i.e., development) of multiracial identity. Our purpose is to encourage critical thinking that allows multiracial clients to make identity choices from more personally and socially informed stances.

CRITICAL CONVERSATIONS

In recent years, the feminist critique (e.g., Featherstone, 1996; Goldner, 1985; Hare-Mustin, 1978) has been expanded to include broader, multicultural movements in family therapy (e.g., McGoldrick, 1998; Waldegrave & Kiwi, 1994). Our own approach to working with multiracial identity builds on this work as well as on the emancipatory educational approach of Paulo Freire (1970). Korin (1994) also used Freire’s critical pedagogical approach to describe critical, emancipatory, therapeutic conversations. In this section,


we review some of Freire’s fundamental ideas and Korin’s use of these ideas in therapy. In Freire’s (1970) work as an educator with members of oppressed groups in Brazil, he recognized

a gap between elitist educational practices and real lives of the working class. He drew attention to what he termed the “banking method” of education, which refers to top-down, one-way learning. According to Freire, educators often “fill” learners by making “deposits” of information that they consider to constitute true knowledge. There is no space for questioning the information. Learners are to accept the deposits and adjust themselves to the assigned world.

In Freire’s (1970) critical, problem-posing method of education, there is reciprocity in the interactions between the teacher and student, co-creating knowledge and raising awareness of self and others. This takes the form of a discussion, rather than lecture, in which educators and those they work with become co-learners, creating knowledge and social awareness through their interactions. According to Freire (1970), “problem-posing education involves a constant unveiling of reality . . . [and] . . . strives for the emergence of consciousness and critical intervention in reality” (p. 81). To become a problem poser requires basic belief in people’s capacity to provide insights about themselves and the world surrounding them. Freire argued that through reflection and action we are able to transform reality. Neither can be sacrificed; reflection without action becomes merely empty words, and action without reflection becomes “action for action’s sake” (p. 88). Critical dialogue allows people to examine their reality and realize its structure is changeable, then to get ready to make needed transformation. According to Freire, true dialogue is impossible without critical thinking, and critical thinking is inseparable from action. For the critical thinker, “the important thing is the continuing transformation of the reality, in behalf of the continuing humanization of men [and women]” (p. 92). We add to this our belief that in some situations, therapy that focuses only on telling stories and validating feelings runs the risk of maintaining the status quo of social inequity by helping clients adapt to, rather than challenge, oppressive social forces.

Korin (1994) argued Freire’s (1970) ideas and methods for engaging in critical conversations via dialogue, reflection, and action fit with important aspects of recent therapeutic approaches. For example, family therapy, in its postmodern era, advocates for therapist’s one-down position, which acknowledges clients as experts of their own lives. Freire also emphasized that dialogue is a co-creative activity involving respect and collaboration. We see potential for integrating critical conversations into most approaches or models of therapy. For example, a therapist working from a structural perspective might ask family members to share responses to problem-posing questions and reflections via enactments in session and encourage family members to take action between sessions in ways that support structural goals. A solution-focused therapist might emphasize drawing from past solutions for taking action that includes all family members as well as historical figures. We encourage therapists to take the basic framework of critical conversations and adapt it to individual families and their own therapy frameworks.

A CRITICAL CONVERSATION APPROACH TO RAISING MULTIRACIAL IDENTITY IN THERAPY

Our model for raising multiracial awareness and enhancing multiracial identity development in therapy involves three phases: dialogue, reflection, and action (Freire, 1970; Korin, 1994). In this section we explain each phase. We then discuss opening space in therapy for conversations about race and offer two case examples in which we applied this model to working with clients.

DialogueDuring the initial dialogue phase in critical therapeutic conversations the therapist asks questions

focusing on the social contexts of clients’ lives. Through these questions, the therapist attempts to ascertain the clients’ views regarding the sources and impact of any oppressive forces. The questioning technique parallels circular questioning in its focus on the vivid experiences and problem manifestations in relational contexts; however, there is more emphasis on larger sociopolitical contexts. This dialogue is guided by “curiosity, interest and empathy, and the basic belief in people’s capacity to provide insights about themselves and the world surrounding them” (Korin, 1994, p. 90).


When working within the dialogical focus of critical conversations, we emphasize the sensorimotor/elemental orientation, which centers personal feelings and experience, as well as the concrete/situational orientation, which involves one’s ability to describe actions and events (Rigazio-DiGilio, 2000; Rigazio-DiGilio et al., 1997). Examples of questions that encourage expansion and development within the sensorimotor/elemental orientation (i.e., feelings and experience) might include: What was it like for you when your teacher saw your mother and asked if you were adopted? Who in the family do you think is most upset by your grandparents spending less time with you than with the other grandchildren? Examples of questions that invite exploration into a concrete/situational orientation (i.e., actions and events) might include: What do you notice about the reactions of those around you when you are walking hand-in-hand? How is being with your African American family different from being with your European American family?

Reflection In the next phase, the therapist helps clients to reflect critically on what emerged during the initial

problem-posing, dialogue phase. Questions often begin with “how” and “why.” “How” questions clarify the facts, experiences, and realities in order for clients to see the patterns of their interactions and generate themes of their own. “Why” questions help clients to identify the root cause of their problems and to analyze their experiences. The challenge for therapists in this phase is to flexibly choose the most relevant dimensions (e.g., race, culture, class, gender, sexual orientation) to focus on, along with clients’ realities and the nature of problems presented (Korin, 1994).

Reflection within critical conversations relies in part on a formal/reflective orientation (Rigazio-DiGilio, 2000; Rigazio-DiGilio et al., 1997). This orientation involves the ability to recognize recurring patterns and synthesize multiple perspectives. Questions that explore the many realities of being multiracial yet tie the experience together across contexts are good examples of how therapists might encourage the development of the formal/reflective orientation. Questions might include: “How do you decide how to racially identify in new situations?” and “How do you think your White friends think of you racially?” The most reflective process in critical conversations relies on a dialectic/systemic orientation (Rigazio-DiGilio, 2000; Rigazio-DiGilio et al. 1997). This involves the ability to recognize the influence of larger systemic influences, including extrafamilial and sociopolitical forces. Exploring the history of race relations and multiracial experience, discussing the multiracial movement, and talking about systemic racism are examples of working from this orientation. Questions that help clients to explore dominant discourses about race and multiracial identity might include: “How do you think opinions about interracial marriage have changed in our society from the time your parents got married until now?” and “Why do you think opinions have changed?”

Action In this phase of critical conversations, the therapist encourages clients to initiate action to change their

social situations. It is very important that clients are able to both relate and separate individual/relational problems from social problems. This is possible through the critical thinking process of the first two phases. Preparing to take action includes clients shifting away from self-blame by taking responsibility for initiating individual and social change that is within their control (Korin, 1994). Because personal concerns and issues are in correspondence with those of society, change is required in both (Freire, 1970). By increasing awareness and encouraging development in all four orientations, multiracial individuals and families are better able to challenge oppressive social constructions within themselves, leading to greater choice of action. Examples of action might include joining a multiracial activist group, educating others about multiracial identity, meeting with school personnel when overt racism occurs, or advocating for literature on multiracial families to be included in professional training curricula.

The process we have described is ongoing, shifting back and forth between problem-posing dialogue, reflection, and action. Therapists bring their own social awareness and ideas about sociopolitical context to these conversations. They, therefore, have an obligation to pursue contextual self-awareness actively and to


become well-educated in issues relating to multiracial identity and experience (Killian, 2001, 2002; Korin, 1994). Therapists must examine their own social locations, reactions to issues of oppression, and gaps in knowledge before and as they engage clients in critical conversations. This is particularly true given the risks of recreating oppressed–oppressor interactions (Joldersma, 2001; McLaren, 1993). We agree with Freire (1970) that understanding others cannot occur without subjectivity. Therapists should be cognizant, however, that simply interpreting what clients are saying via the therapist’s own lens without critical examination risks undermining and generalizing clients’ experiences.

OPENING SPACE

As an inquiry group, we frequently found ourselves engaged in conversations about ways to open space for talking about race/racism in therapy. Clients seldom explicitly presented their racial experiences and were often reluctant to talk freely about race or racism. When we attempted to discuss how racism might be integral to presenting problems, some clients were more willing and able to engage in in-depth conversations than others who dismissed the topic or relied on thin descriptions of their experiences. We began “watching for openings” to embrace opportunities to explore racial terrain when clients made specific or generalized comments about their racial experiences and/or when they responded to our racial inquiries. Over time, we realized that several conditions had to be met in order to engage in meaningful, collaborative discussions about race and racism.

First, genuine respect and collaboration cannot be overemphasized in relationship to engaging in problem-posing (or critical) conversations (Freire, 1970; Korin, 1994) and conversations about race. As therapists, most of us are skilled in forming respectful, caring, collaborative relationships. Second, cultural empathy, which includes a therapist’s ability to “step into” a client’s racial worldview and deeply acknowledge racial experience, is imperative to this work. This requires the ability to find a sense of connection with clients who are both similar and different from us in ways that validate their lived experience. To develop this ability, we must be willing to engage in deep reflection about our own racial experience and the privilege and/or oppression associated with our racial identity locations. Third, we must be knowledgeable about the history and contemporary condition of race relationships in our society, raising our own consciousness to lead racial discussions with clients ethically and responsibly. Fourth, we must be comfortable, fluent, and able to talk openly about race. This includes articulating our knowledge about race and racial inequities within the therapeutic context in ways that resonate with clients. Finally, we must be able to genuinely demonstrate not only a shared racial standpoint, but one that acknowledges the reality of racism.

For example, a monoracial Japanese member of our team, Takiko was working with a family whose 18-year-old multiracial daughter, Tanya, was depressed. Tanya reported feeling like she didn’t really fit in with her White or Black peers. Takiko first established a warm, caring, and collaborative relationship with the family. Then she demonstrated her comfort in talking about race/racism, cultural empathy, and shared racial standpoint by talking about her own struggles and intimidations being a Japanese therapist in the U.S. Following Takiko’s authenticity about her own experiences with racism and nationism, family members began talking at a more intimate and emotional level. Tanya was able to tell her family about her fears of “being herself” in front of her friends at school, because she was constantly guessing their thoughts about her race. She believed that, because she could pretend to be friendly while feeling fearful, her friends could also pretend to accept her skin color when, in fact, they did not. Tanya’s father, who was Black, went on to share that at work he thought frequently about his skin color as well and kept quiet even when he wanted to take risks.

We found that laying these foundations for talking about race was fundamental in allowing opportu-nities to use dialogue, reflection, and action relative to multiracial awareness. Following are case examples that demonstrate how we applied our model for using critical conversations in therapy with multiracial clients.


CASE EXAMPLES

Hector Hector was a 16-year-old boy whose mother was European American and whose father emigrated to the

U.S. from Mexico. Hector was referred to Lucrezia, an Italian American therapist on our team, because he was acting out in school and making frequent racist remarks. He appeared to be White and openly claimed only his White identity. Hector described himself as “not racist,” but just not liking Mexican culture. He frequently joked about “Mexicans.” Hector admitted that, although he knew he made racist remarks, he did not like strangers to make derogatory comments about Mexicans or Mexican Americans. Although, when his friends did so, he “didn’t mind” and would join in. During their initial dialogue, the therapist attempted to expand Hector’s sensorimotor/elemental orientation by asking him about his experience when others made these kinds of comments. He admitted that these comments were uncomfortable for him and that he felt both proud and ashamed of being Mexican American. One of the ways the therapist worked with Hector to expand his concrete/situational orientation was by asking what differences he noticed in his own behavior and the behavior of others when he was with his White friends and his friends of color. He was able to realize that he often made jokes about Mexicans/Mexican Americans when he was with White friends before someone else could make a joke at his expense. Lucrezia also asked Hector how he thought Whites in general looked at Mexicans/Mexican Americans. He admitted that Whites often “looked down” on Mexicans/Mexican Americans. He also noticed that Mexican Americans were less likely than Whites to have “huge” houses and “nice” cars. By weaving back and forth between feelings, experiences, and observations, Hector was helped to get in touch with deep, often confusing, thoughts and emotions about his multiracial identity.

Hector was also invited into reflection. Lucrezia asked him why he thought Whites had more advantages. He expressed his opinion that Mexican Americans were often treated unfairly only because “they are Mexican.” By noticing examples of this, Hector was encouraged to use a formal/reflective orientation to recognize the recurring patterns of systemic and individual racism against Mexican Americans. He was also encouraged to explore the influences of larger social forces that create inequities between European Americans and Mexican Americans, including relevant U.S. history and Mexican culture. The dialectic/systemic orientation was privileged by exploring the influences of larger social forces that support stereotypes and economic disparities. This helped prepare Hector to take action, such as refusing to join in when friends joked about Mexicans/Mexican Americans and checking out multiracial and Latino websites. Furthermore, Lucrezia could draw on the history of her parents’ emigration to the U.S. and her experience being first generation Italian American to compare and contrast the experience of those who emigrate from Mexico with those who emigrate from Europe.

Mavis and Tessa Mavis was a European American, single mother who entered therapy with, Teresa, a European

American therapist on our team. Mavis was concerned about her 9-year-old African European American daughter, Tessa. Tessa had come home from school several times upset because other kids, and even her teacher, had asked if she were adopted after seeing her with her mom. The family lived in the all-White, rural community where Mavis had been raised. They had extended family and community support, but virtually no contact with an African American community or anyone of color.

Teresa invited Tessa and her mother into dialogue by introducing problem-posing questions about their experience of being a multiracial family in a White community. Tessa told the therapist, “I wish my mom’s skin was dark like mine. If we matched, people would stop asking me if I am adopted.” This was an opening for the therapist to explore a concrete/situational orientation by asking additional questions concerning what Mavis and Tessa noticed about how others related to them racially in a variety of community and extended family situations. Teresa then started exploring Tessa’s experience from a sensorimotor/elemental orientation, asking how she felt when others asked if she were adopted. Teresa explored this same territory with Mavis, asking about her feelings and reactions when asked similar questions or receiving quizzical stares. It was important for Mavis and Tessa to explore together their


feelings and experiences when others pointed to their racial differences and invalidated their relationship. By doing so, Mavis could better relate to and support her daughter, and Tessa could build trust that her mother understood and could help to guide her.

Teresa then invited Tessa and Mavis into reflection, exploring their thoughts about why others related to them in these ways. At Tessa’s cognitive level, her explanations relied on difference. This was in keeping with her idea that there would not be a problem if she and her mom “matched.” Exploring a formal/reflective orientation with Tessa, the therapist asked about other ways she and her mom “matched” (e.g., what they liked to do, personality traits, and gender). Mavis was able to consider recurring patterns and multiple perspectives within a formal/reflective orientation in more sophisticated ways. For example, she could use her own White racial experience to relate to the lack of racial awareness of others. As a White therapist, Teresa was able to affirm and build on Mavis’s experience of becoming increasingly racially aware, including the stressed relational dynamics with White friends and family that often occur throughout this process. This prompted Mavis to explore the reactions of extended family and community when she married interracially. She also recognized her own pattern of gravitating to all-White contexts. Within a dialectic/systemic orientation, Mavis was encouraged to consider the history and social context of race relations, including regional differences and the impact of limiting the family’s experience to their rural White community.

Mavis identified Tessa as biracial, which Tessa simply accepted at her age, but they had not identified the family as multiracial. As Teresa introduced this idea along with resources for multiracial families, Mavis began to see avenues for action. She recognized the need for the family to spend time with Tessa’s paternal extended family, other multiracial families, and more diverse communities. By Mavis embracing a multiracial family identity, she could shift her focus from being solely on Tessa to include her own needs and those of the family as a whole. She could also begin making decisions and providing opportunities that would enhance her daughter’s identity development over time.

OUR JOURNEY

In retrospect, we realized that, as an inquiry team, we engaged in ongoing critical conversation ourselves that deeply influenced our individual and group racial development. We engaged in dialogue by making space in the group to tell and witness experiences and emotions related to race and racism. For example, after hearing racial slurs at the family therapy conference, we talked extensively and “sat with” a depth of emotion that affected each of us. This was an important collective process that privileged sensorimotor/elemental and concrete/situational orientations. Had we stopped there, our group process would have been affirming, but we would have failed to use this powerful experience to move toward consensitization (Freire, 1970) and action. Instead, we began actively and intentionally investigating multiracial identity. We engaged in reflection during our team conversations as members talked about racially shaped life experiences and we began exploring the complexities of the broader social context of being multiracial in the U.S. In these ways, we privileged formal/reflective and dialectic/systemic orientations. Through this process we developed our approach for working with multiracial identity in therapy. Here was action that resulted from dialogue and reflection. These conversations did not unfold in a linear manner. We wove in and out of going in depth into emotion, reflecting on broader social issues, describing what clients were telling us, and sharing personal life experiences. Courses of action were considered throughout our meetings including developing strategies for working with specific families as well as developing the broader framework presented in this article.

Race is a relevant construct only within relational terms. Our conversations, therefore, enhanced the racial development of all of us. For example, as our monoracial, White team members gained better understanding of multiracial identity experience, history, and politics, they were better able to acknowledge White privilege and to develop antiracist White identities. Our monoracial international team member became increasingly cognizant of the contextual meaning of race in the U.S., including reactions she experienced in therapy with respect to her own race and nationality. Our multiracial team members likewise became increasingly racially aware, affirmed, and socially active.


CONCLUSION

We believe that critical conversations are not only useful in relationship to multiracial identity, but can be highly effective with other issues of oppression (e.g., gender, abilities, class). Particular to our work with issues of multiracial identity development, we have found these conversations to be effective when coupled with our own awareness of the complex social issues involved in multiracial identity choices. We acknowledge that a significant focus of our work is on the sociopolitical aspects of racial identity. This is due to our belief that the sociopolitical is inseparably tied to personal experience and therefore increased social awareness often plays an integral role in therapy.

In this article, we demonstrated using critical conversations to explore multiracial identity and experience. We believe that critical conversations offer an effective framework for working from a social justice perspective. The ability to identify one’s experience, describe situational problems, make sense of recurring patterns, and reflect on systemic forces in increasingly sophisticated ways allows clients to move more effectively toward taking action on their own behalf. We also believe that, as therapists leading conversations with multiracial families, we must become critically aware of racial dynamics ourselves. We hope our efforts have contributed to a greater understanding of the politics of multiracial identity and offered therapists concrete avenues for working with multiracial families.

REFERENCES

Benedetto, A., & Olisky, T. (2001). Biracial youth: The role of the school counselor in racial identity development. Professional School Counseling, 5, 66–100.

Cross, W. (1971). The Negro-to-Black conversion experience: Toward a psychology of Black liberation. Black World, 20, 13–27.

Falicov, C. (2003). Culture in family therapy: New variations on a fundamental theme. In T. Sexton, G. Weeks, & M. Robbins, (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (pp. 37–58). New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Featherstone, V. (1996). A feminist critique of family therapy. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 9, 15–33.Fang, S., McDowell, T., & Holland, C. (in press). Internationalizing family science programs: A spherical expansion of

inclusive perspectives. Journal of Teaching of Marriage and Family Science.Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Gibbs, J. T. (1989). Biracial adolescents. In J. T. Gibbs & L. N. Huang (Eds.), Children of color: Psychological interventions

with culturally diverse youth (pp. 332–350). New York: Jossey-Bass.Goldner, V. (1985). Feminism and family therapy. Family Process, 24, 31–48.Hall, R. (2000). The racial canons of American sociology: Identity across the lifespan as biracial alternative. American

Sociologist, 31, 86–94.Hare-Mustin, R. T. (1978). A feminist approach to family therapy. Family Process, 17, 181–194.Helms, J. (1990). Black and white racial identity: Theory, research and practice. New York: Greenwood. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress. New York: Routledge. Joldersma, C. W. (2001). The tension between justice and freedom in Paulo Freire’s epistemology. Journal of Educational

Thought, 35, 129–148.Kerwin, C., & Ponterotto, J. (1995). Biracial identity development: Theory and research. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A.

Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 199–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Killian, K. (2001). Reconstituting racial histories and identities: The narratives of interracial couples. Journal of Marital and

Family Therapy, 27, 27–43.Killian, K. (2002). Dominant and marginalized discourses in interracial couples’ narratives: Implications for family

therapists. Family Process, 41, 603–616.Korin, E. C. (1994). Social inequalities and therapeutic relationships: Applying Freire’s ideas to clinical practice. Journal of

Feminist Family Therapy, 5(3/4), 75–98.McDowell, T., & Jeris, L. (2004). Talking about race using critical race theory: Recent trends in the JMFT. Journal of Marital

and Family Therapy, 30, 81–94. McGoldrick, M. (Ed.). (1998). Re-visioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice. New York:

Guilford Press.McLaren, P. (1993). Critical literacy and postcolonial praxis: A Freirian perspective. College Literature, 19/20(3), 7–27.McRoy, R., & Hall, C. (1996). Transracial adoptions: In whose best interest? In M. Root (Ed.), The multiracial experience:

Racial borders as the new frontier (pp. 63–78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Milan, S., & Keiley, M. (2000). Biracial youth and families in therapy: Issues and interventions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 305–366.

Nakashima, C. (1996). Voices from the movement: Approaches to multiraciality. In M. Root (Ed.), The multiracial experience: Racial borders as the new frontier (pp. 79–100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Parham, T., & Helms, J. (1985). Relation of racial identity attitudes to self-actualization and affective states of black students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 431–440.

Poston, W. (1990). The biracial identity development model: A needed addition. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 152–155.

Rigazio-DiGilio, S. (2000). Reconstructing psychological distress and disorder from a relational perspective: A systemic, coconstructive-developmental framework. In R. Neimeyer & J. Raskin (Eds.), Constructions of disorder (pp. 309–332). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rigazio-DiGilio, S., Daniels, T., & Ivey, A. (1997). Systemic cognitive-developmental supervision: A developmental-integrative approach to psychotherapy supervision. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 223–249). New York: John Wiley.

Rigazio-DiGilio, S., & Ivey, A. (1995). Individual and family issues in intercultural counseling and therapy: A culturally-centered perspective. Canadian Journal of Counseling, 29, 244–261.

Rockquemore, K., & Laszloffy, T. (2003). Multiple realities: A relational narrative approach in therapy with black-white mixed-race clients. Family Relations 52, 119–129.

Root, M. (1996). A bill of rights for racially mixed people. In M. Root (Ed.), The multiracial experience: Racial borders as the new frontier (pp. 3–14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Root, M (2002). Five mixed-race identities: From relic to revolution. In L. Winters & H. DeBose (Eds.), New faces in a changing America: Multiracial identity in the 21st century (pp. 3–20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tashiro, C. (2002). Considering the significance of ancestry through the prism of mixed- race identity. Advances in Nursing Science, 25(2), 1–21.

Waldegrave, C., & Kiwi, T. (1994). Some central ideas in the “Just Therapy” approach. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 2(2), 94–103.

Wehrly, B., Kenney, K., & Kenney, M. (1999). Counseling multiracial families. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.

RAISING MULTIRACIAL AWARENESS IN FAMILY THERAPY THROUGH CRITICAL CONVERSATIONS

Documents

Transcript of RAISING MULTIRACIAL AWARENESS IN FAMILY THERAPY THROUGH CRITICAL CONVERSATIONS