At the end of the summer we took our last policy-focused class, SOWK 606 S01: Advanced Policy Practice in Context, taught by Robbie Babins-Wagner. This was an opportunity to become clearer on what we had learned and what we were curious about regarding policy. Building off my previous insights and areas of interest, I wanted to focus on the divisiveness that arises around differences in identity, and I found myself researching and writing about influencing policy that has the potential to strengthen the bridges within our global neighborhood where there are currently crevasses of separation and othering. Crevasses filled with fear, pain, grief, and misinformation.
In my paper for this class I suggested incorporating the Intercultural Development Continuum into post-secondary education so that our future teachers are skilled in knowing how to create experiences for students to bridge across differences.
From my paper:
According to Jaiswal et al (2024), through developing intercultural competence learners become equipped with a multitude of qualities associated with compassion and empathy, as well as “communication skills that are crucial to understand and appreciate cultural differences” (p. 542).
It is important to first understand where someone is at in their intercultural competence journey so that we can design learning that will challenge their current perspective and provide an appropriate balance of stress and support to enhance the likelihood they will endure the discomfort until they arrive at the next stage of development (Vromans et al., 2023, p. 3).
So, what is the Intercultural Development Continuum?
It is a framework that maps out the mindset towards differences and capacity for conflict along a spectrum or continuum from monocultural to intercultural (Finney, 2024). Depending on where someone sits on this continuum, different interventions are needed to support that person to the next stage of development (IDC, 2023). Different capacities require different plans for skill building.
There are five main stages along this continuum, moving from low tolerance and capacity for conflict to highly tolerant and able to bridge differences. The stages are: denial, polarization, minimization, acceptance, adaptation.
The monocultural end houses three stages that are deeply influenced by angst, anxiety, fear and shame. With denial, people tend to ignore or are unwilling to see difference. With polarization, people overemphasize and judge difference harshly (their own difference or others). And with minimization, they prioritize commonality and minimize the impact of difference altogether.
I suggest we lean into the IFS model to recognize our own harsh or biased reactions and beliefs about difference to be ‘parts’ within us that are protecting a deeper pain.
From my paper:
For many white-bodied folks, the topic of racism touches deep shame and guilt (Bronstein, et al., 2023; Menakem, 2021), and when we are under-resourced in our ability to understand how to ‘be with’ and move forward with these feelings, avoidance and denial are a fast-acting antidote and feel like a saving grace (Miller & Josephs, 2009). Moving in to be with these feelings is not meant to be a self-flagellation (Menakem, 2021; Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020). These deep pains are attached to burdens we carry from the past and beliefs we embodied about what these emotions mean about who we are. There is a way to move inwards and meet these sensations, experiences and stories with love and compassion, listening and understanding where they came from and how other parts have been enrolled in service of protection. Just as we are practicing with others, when our parts feel heard and understood, they cooperate, they update, they release what had them stuck and they become more flexible and adaptive to the complexity of this human experience that requires we feel and hold many truths and emotions simultaneously.
We must recognize that we all have wounds and pain around rejection, worthlessness, powerlessness, meaninglessness, loneliness, abandonment, shame, humiliation, horror and deep grief (Bronstein, et al., 2023). These same wounds that create reactive separation and defensiveness are also shared pains of humanity that can be in service of connection (Bronstein, et al., 2023). As facilitators, social workers and allies, when we are connected to and lead from Self (McVicker & Pourier, 2021; Janes, et al., 2020; Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020), we have the ability to help others connect more deeply with themselves and each other. According to IFS and the intercultural consensus on Self, when we lead from this state of being we have access to a multidimensional perspective (McVicker & Pourier, 2021).
Erroneous ‘othering’ and dichotomous categories further feed a sense of separation, and often lead those labeled as privileged to feel guilt and be prone to defensiveness and overwhelm (Wong, 2018). This causes attention to focus on competition and defense rather than the important process of dismantling oppression, which requires that we critically examine ‘whiteness’ (Lawrence & Bunche, 1996). This also sheds light on a common sentiment conveyed by white folks who say that we (as a collective) have transcended race (Miller & Josephs, 2009), often coupled with the proclamation of a quintessential ‘color blindness’ (Lawrence & Bunche, 1996). Not understanding the racism that is built into our society leaves many white-bodied folks blind to the continuation of daily microaggressions (Miller & Josephs, 2009), and therefore, unable to be effective allies.
Finney (2024) teaches that for folks who have mindsets and capacities that align them in the monocultural end of the spectrum, they need support to see difference, different worldviews, different ways of doing things and they require a lot of support as their capacity for conflict is very low. There is also a tendency to dismiss new information and lead from fear and anger, where difference is perceived as a threat. We need to either spotlight in-group differences/out-group commonalities or in-group commonalities/out-group differences; depending on where they are stuck. It is important to address their fears, shame and overwhelm. Support will be needed as they build personal connections with who they currently perceive as the “other” and, once trust is built, guidance towards recognizing different sources of information, outside their current window of information (Finney, 2024). The process of colonization is said to be an experience that separates the mind and body (Wong, 2018), and as such, it seems wise to focus on models of practice and healing that focus on embodiment.
As we step into the intercultural end of the continuum, we arrive at the stage of acceptance. Folks with this mindset are people who deeply understand differences. They have learned a lot, and they see how differences make a difference. They have vast knowledge about their own cultural standings and others, but they often lack the courage to act upon the knowledge that they have out of fear of making a mistake. Patience, support and curated environments to practice are important.
Lastly is the adaptation mindset, where folks have the capacity to bridge across differences. Conflict is something they see as a part of the human experience, and they have skills that allow them to see conflict is not a problem in and of itself and can actually be utilized to enhance connection and growth (Finney, 2024). They are able to navigate conflict skillfully. Immense skill is required to honor differences while recognizing commonality (Agate & Finney, 2023).
From my paper:
Strategic essentialism is a philosophy that attempts to support this vital aspect of connection. It says that for the sake of agreeableness, we must use definitions while recognizing that they are social constructions (Mounk, 2023). A common argument in opposition to race-based conversations is that to acknowledge race as a social construction and then use it as the sole or primary prism to examine any phenomena (i.e., white privilege) perpetuates a dangerous contradiction (Mounk, 2023). The fact that white privilege is not a Universal phenomenon supports this position.
While I agree that we must be mindful of simplifying or monolithically residing in the prism of white privilege as the only problem, rather than critically examining all misuses of privilege and power (Mounk, 2023), it is vital that we do not use this as reasoning to side-step race-based conversations.
Perhaps a way to support this conversation is by including the acknowledgement of multiple forms of privilege, and ensuring we display our ability to shift our center of attention to highlight this understanding. Being hyper-focused or fixated on one aspect of privilege will inherently create division and inevitably lead some people to feel unseen and not included, especially when they currently reside in a monocultural mindset. It reminds me of the counter-arguments that arose during the rise of “Black Lives Matter” and how some groups felt the need to create their own slogans, like, “All Lives Matter.” The misunderstanding here was the idea that by saying Black Lives Matter there was an underlying statement that they mattered more or that other bodies didn’t matter. Or maybe, a reactive response that suggests they feel unseen or invalidated in their own struggles (Miller & Josephs, 2009). Of course All Lives Matter, and sometimes there needs to be more attention placed on certain groups who are caught in the shadow of the dominant culture’s blind spot and are being harmed in complete disproportion to other groups. In order for these conversations to amplify ally-ship and deconstruct colonialism, it is vital that race-based conversations are framed in a way that separates white privilege from personal merit, so as to not threaten one’s concept of deservedness (Knowles et al., 2014). Additionally, it is important that these conversations take place in an environment that feels safe so that as difficult feelings arise, we can remain present to feel and be with these parts of us in ‘dis-ease’, rather than avoid them (Knowles et al., 2014; Menakem, 2021; Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020).
I suggest that what we need is more support in these conversations, more people who feel resourced and capable to sit in discomfort, and alignment in our collective goal of harmonious relationships that lead to the deconstructing of systemic racism within ourselves and the environments we live within.
Within the Internal Family Systems model there is also the use of the term polarizations to describe the situation of two or more parts in someone’s internal system that are opposed in terms of how they are operating to access safety. An extremely common scenario I experience with client’s is their description of feeling stuck and distressed as a part of them desires a particular change and another part appears to sabotage that change or seems to desire something else that creates conflict.
While we have ideas from the Intercultural Development Continuum regarding how to progress from monocultural to intercultural and bridge differences, how is this the same or different when navigating polarizations internally?
Finney (2024) summarizes the key skills and steps, as more or less,
Slow down, listen, and get to know what need they are protecting or trying to meet with their behaviour. Discover what they consider to be at stake here, or what they are afraid would happen if they didn’t engage in that behavior.
Build trust by seeking to understand and displaying a collaborative approach.
Offer another way or perspective that can expand their current position and expresses a compelling alternative or bridge between opposing sides. This might include needing to find someone else to express the alternative option. Acknowledging is easier said than done, it will be messy and is a journey in many ways, as remaining in a Self led place when up against or in the presence of another person or part who is fighting for your dehumanization is not simple.
Center our Universal connection and responsibility to each other as essential in creating healing for ourselves and the planet
From my paper:
Ultimately, the more internal polarizations we liberate, the more Self energy there will be available, which expands our capacity to lead with love. Those with the most power in our society benefit when we are polarized and fighting for just causes in a way that emphasizes othering (Mounk, 2023). According to Godden (2017), leading with love is a “radical epistemology” that challenges the systemic competitive nature of patriarchal systems that we unconsciously carry and see acted out in our environments (p. 414). hooks (1996) concurs by attesting that love is foundational, both in the action that dismantles dichotomies woven within the colonial culture of domination, and as an anchor to hold onto as dismantling will temporarily cause a loss of what is currently the ground our systems rely upon. As allies, to lead with love is a reminder to slow down and see the multitude of parts that are operating within every person’s system, and seek to understand their fears and pains that are the fire beneath words and actions that are harmful (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020).
These parts within all of us need love, validation and support to release burdens of the past that keep us closed off and divisive (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020). And when we cultivate the ability to be the consistent secure attachment figure for our own internal system, we are less reliant or reactive when the external world pushes our buttons.
When we feel and bare witness to aversion and denial, my hope is that we will slow down, take a patient and smooth breath (Brunette-Debassiage, 2018), and turn towards the part of ourselves or others that is in need of unconditional love and understanding. Deconstruction requires a collaborative effort, frameworks that add clarity and direction, and more people who are capable of sitting in discomfort. May we remember to recognize the interconnection between intrapersonal and interpersonal, and come to see that how we interact with ourselves and the world around us has the potential to change the entire Universe (Wilson, 2019).
References:
Agate, J., & Finney, F. (2023). Intercultural development continuum (IDC). Intent, impact, and intercultural competence: How to successfully navigate difference (Online Course). Retrieved January 5, 2023, from https://courses.ifs-institute.com/.
Bronstein, E., Henriques, A., Hull, T., & Rothman, A. (Hosts). (2023, October 29). Exiles and the healing process with Einat Bronstein [Audio podcast episode]. IFS talks: An internal family systems therapy podcast. Apple Podcast.
Brunette-Debassige, C. (2018). From subjugation to embodied self-in-relation: An Indigenous pedagogy for decolonization. In Batacharya, S. & Wong, Y-L. R. (Eds.). (2018). Sharing breath: Embodied learning and decolonization (pp. 199-228). essay, AU Press. Retrieved November 18, 2023, from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/lib/ucalgary-ebooks/reader.action?pq-origsite=primo&ppg=264&docID=5574863.
Finney, F. (2024). Self, spirituality & social justice. IFS: A tool for liberation. IFS Institute.
Intercultural Development Continuum. (2023). Intercultural Development Inventory. https://www.idiinventory.com/idc
Godden, N. (2017). The love ethic: A radical theory for social work practice. Australian Social Work, 70(4), 405–416.
hooks, b. (1996). “Contemplation and Transformation.” In Dresser, M. (Ed.) (1996). Buddhist Women on the Edge: Contemporary Perspectives from the Western Frontiers, 287–92. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.
Intercultural Development Continuum. (2023). Intercultural Development Inventory. https://www.idiinventory.com/idc
Jaiswal, A., Jin, L., & Acheson, K. (2024). Evaluation of STEM program on student intercultural development: Do intercultural interventions work? Innovative Higher Education, 49(3), 541–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09691-4
Janes, E. E., Trevino, Z. R., Koehl, H., & Hung, Y.-H. (2022). Internal family systems and spirituality: Implications for supervision. Contemporary Family Therapy, 45(2), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-021-09625-2
Knowles, E. D., Lowery, B. S., Chow, R. M., & Unzueta, M. M. (2014). Deny, distance, or dismantle? How white Americans manage a privileged identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 594–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614554658
Lawrence, S. M., & Bunche, T. (1996). Feeling and dealing: Teaching white students about racial privilege. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(5), 531–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051x(95)00054-n
McVicker, S. A. M., & Pourier, W. (2021). Two counselors envision IFS (internal family systems) therapy for addictions treatment in Indian country. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 39(2), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/07347324.2020.1846479
Menakem, R. (2021). My grandmother’s hands: Racialized trauma and the pathway to mending our hearts and bodies. Penguin Books.
Miller, A. E., & Josephs, L. (2009). Whiteness as pathological narcissism. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 45(1), 93–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00107530.2009.10745989
Mounk, Y. (2023). Identity trap: A story of ideas and power in our time. Penguin.
Schwartz, R. C., & Sweezy, M. (2020). Internal family systems therapy (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Vromans, P., Korzilius, H., Bücker, J., & Jong, E. de. (2023). Intercultural learning in the classroom: Facilitators and challenges of the learning process. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 97, 101907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2023.101907
Wilson, S. (2019). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Langara College.
Wong, Y.-L. R. (2018). “Please call me by my true names”: A decolonizing pedagogy of mindfulness and interbeing in critical social work education. In Batacharya, S. & Wong, Y-L. R. (Eds.). (2018). Sharing breath: Embodied learning and decolonization (pp. 253–277). essay, AU Press. Retrieved November 18, 2023, from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/lib/ucalgary-ebooks/reader.action?pq-origsite=primo&ppg=264&docID=5574863.