Stages of Social Justice

In the 21st century, thanks to the diversity and multicultural movement and its consciousness-raising impact on counseling, social justice is a term and a movement that is alive and well (Gnilka, O’Hara, & Chang, 2018). There is even a division within the American Counseling Association entitled Counselors for Social Justice. Ratts, Anthony, and Santos (2010) have refined the concept of social justice into a description that is both a process and a goal. They break down the dimensions of social justice into five stages, starting with an intrapsychic and ethnocentric-based perspective and ending with an advocacy position where, “group members and leaders . . . step outside the traditional group setting to advocate with and on behalf of a cause or issue” (p. 165).

Stage 1 is naivety, “a lack of awareness of how issues of diversity impact the intra and interpersonal interactions within the group” (Berg, Landreth, & Falls, 2018, p. 16). In these types of groups, the group leader assumes that all interactions are universal and equal. Multicultural variables are not examined or brought up. It is as if they were not there. Thus, some members of the group feel misunderstood, undervalued, and even oppressed.

Stage 2 is one of multicultural integration. In this stage, the, “group leader moves out of an ethnocentric lens and fully recognizes the richness of the cultural elements of each member” (p. 16). Although cultural identities are interwoven into the flow of the group, and the potency of the group is improved, there is not a lot of depth to discussions, and awareness levels regarding culture and diversity stay on a surface level.

Stage 3 is known as liberatory critical consciousness. In this stage, each member of the group, “gains a more expansive understanding of self and the conditions that help form their beliefs” (p. 16). Members are exposed to others’ learning as well and thus are able to place their own and others’ learning into the context of something bigger.

Stage 4 is empowerment. Ratts et al. (2010) note that in this stage, group members find their voice as the atmosphere within the group promotes self-advocacy. Social justice issues are integrated into a wide range of group work applications. Members role-play different ways of acting and receive feedback as they use their knowledge of diversity and multiculturalism to become more aware of how they wish to address issues such as racism and oppression.

The final stage, 5, is described as social justice advocacy. Group members expand their advocacy skills into the larger community and society as a whole. Not every group reaches stage 5, and there is anxiety associated with the stage because it may bring group members into conflict with other professionals. This is because step 5 is social justice in action.

Going even further than Ratts et al. (2010), Burnes and Ross (2010) offer strategies to assist in group discussions on social justice issues such as marginalization, privilege, and oppression. For instance, they advise: “Be intentional about having diversity of group membership and avoid representation/token members of a marginalized community,” “Use structured activities to talk about issues of privilege and oppression,” and, “Facilitate consciousness raising and create awareness of social justice in group members by processing issues of oppression in the moment” (pp. 171–174). They state that their strategies are applicable to, “all types of group work, including brief groups, psychoeducation, psychotherapy groups, and counseling groups” (p. 175).

Although there is still much discussion and debate over social justice and group work, it is clear that the concept and practices that go with it will continue (Hays, Arredondo, Gladding, &Toporek, 2010). Topics both now and for the future surrounding social justice and group work will include “consciousness raising, group empowerment, community organizing, definition of social justice, attribution theory, and sociopolitical identity development” (p. 177).

 

Challenges of Culturally Diverse Groups

As has been implied implicitly and stated explicitly, groups vary in multiple ways. This fact is true for culturally diverse groups, of course. Groups that are culturally diverse are found in a number of settings. However, the contexts in which they are most likely to be conducted are:

1. racial-cultural sensitivity groups, increasingly being held on college and university campuses;
2. alcohol and other drug abuse recovery programs;
3. groups conducted inside correctional facilities; and
4. career development and job training programs (Johnson et al., 1995).

To work effectively with diverse populations in a group context, group leaders must understand the subjective, as well as the objective, experience of group members (Tate, Rivera, Conwill, Miller, & Puig, 2013). To do this, they must make three modifications in the traditional ways of working in a group. First, they must understand what a culture is. A number of definitions of culture exist, but Sternberg (2004) gives one of the best in stating that culture is, “the set of attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors shared by a group of people, communicated from one generation to the next via language or some other means of communication” (p. 325). Because many different groups of people live in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and other pluralistic nations, most group work is multicultural in nature. Indeed, the term multicultural, which stresses this diversity among people, has become quite common in the professional helping literature as well as society at large.

Second, group theory and technique must be modified and, “applied to different cultures in ways that are congruent with the beliefs and behaviors of those cultures” (DeLucia-Waack, 1996b, p. 218). This type of behavior is beginning to occur. A notable example is the application of cognitive appraisal theory to psychoeducational multicultural groups (McCarthy, Mejia, & Liu, 2000). In this model, based on the work of Roseman, Antonion, and Jose (1996), group members are taught to identify linkages between appraisals of events and people and their emotions. They learn, for instance, that individuals can make various interpretations about events and people, including negative, positive, and surprise. A four-stage model is useful in presenting this information and includes a didactic introduction, discovery, deeper insight, and a final integration and appraisal flexibility phase. In the process, participants might learn that changing their appraisal of an event by attributing the cause to themselves, instead of to other individuals, leads to a different emotion and may consequently result in a greater understanding of cultures outside of their own.

Reflection

• When have you been in a group, or even just with another individual, and found that your interpretation of an event was different? What do you think was behind this difference in perception? How did it make you feel? How did you see similar events from then on?

Finally, for group work to be multicultural and diverse, group theory and techniques must be developed that “acknowledge, explore, and use group member differences to facilitate change and growth” (DeLucia-Waack, 1996b, p. 218). This last change, which stresses the use of differences to enhance group effectiveness, has been slow to emerge. Greeley, Garcia, Kessler, and Gilchrest (1992) and Johnson et al. (1995) were early leading authors in this particular area. More recently, Merchant (2009) has spearheaded efforts to help group workers be aware that diversity-related groups are of three types:

• Culture-specific groups—Which focus on a specific cultural population where members are of the same or a similar background.
• Interpersonal learning groups—Which are designed to promote greater understanding across cultural groups and contain members from different cultural backgrounds.
• Other-content-focused groups—Which mainly focus on other topics, such as substance abuse, but at the same time pay attention to the diversity of their members as an important group issue.

Salazar (2009) has edited a book on favorite multicultural activities from leading group experts in order to guide novice and experienced group workers in choosing, planning, conducting, and processing their work in diversity. Still, almost all formalized group approaches, especially in the Western world, are based on European American models (Bemak& Chung, 2004).

Further complicating the issue of conducting multicultural groups are the various definitions of multiculturalism that have been advocated. Multiculturalism as a movement has been defined traditionally in terms of cultural, ethnic, and racial differences. In this somewhat narrow definition, an emphasis is placed specifically on the collective history of a people as an identified group as well as individual differences among members (Atkinson, 2004; Harper, 1984; Vacc&Wittmer, 1980). However, culture may be defined broadly, too, and may include such factors as demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, residence), status variables (e.g., social, educational, economic), and affiliations (both formal and informal) (Pedersen, 2000). Thus, there is a fine line between too narrow and too broad a definition of culture.

A broader definition of culture is probably preferred because of its inclusive rather than exclusive focus. Under such a definition, the almost 20% of Americans who have some type of disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 are included. So are individuals with varied sexual orientations (Brown, 1996). Unquestionably, most groups are multicultural in this broadest sense of the word, in that they are heterogeneous and incorporate within them people with a number of differences (Yalom &Leszcz, 2005). For purposes here, the word multicultural is used in the broadest way. However, because of space limitations, the focus in this chapter is on a narrow number of distinctly recognizable cultural groups: African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos/as, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Arab Americans, European Americans, and gays/lesbians.

 

Myths about Multicultural Groups

A number of myths surround multicultural groups, some perpetuated by professionals with the best of intentions. Yet the fact is that myths are only partially true and, therefore, must be resolved if people from different cultures are to work well together. DeLucia-Waack (1996b) and Locke and Kiselica (1999), among others, have articulated myths that need to be dispelled if diverse groups are going to be productive. Four of them are as follows.

• Myth 1:Discussion of racial or cultural differences is offensive to group members and is best never mentioned. The reason some group workers do not address cultural issues is that they fear a discussion of these matters will offend group members or make them uncomfortable. Yet as DeLucia-Waack points out, “in reality, the acknowledgement of cultural differences may increase group cohesion” (p. 219). The reason is that, once acknowledged, the subject area is no longer taboo, and what was in effect known by everyone on a covert level is now overt. This knowledge can be especially useful if it is addressed in a sensitive manner. Thus, within a group, the leader might say to Lilly, “As an African American housewife, how does what Jane, as a European American housewife, is advocating resonate with you?” In such a situation, Jane and Lilly may find both similarities and differences in what they think based on culture and status. By discussing cultural differences openly, they will not misunderstand or misperceive each other based on silence or presumptions. They may also discuss social justice issues.
• Myth 2:Groups can be homogeneous so focusing on diversity is not needed. Even when groups seem homogeneous, they are not. People are unique in many ways (e.g., gender, age, marital status, family of origin, occupation, beliefs/values). Therefore, a surface resemblance may be exactly that—veneer. Once group workers can break through the myth of homogeneity, true progress can be made in highlighting differences and similarities among people. The group is then freed to use the unique as well as the universal potential within itself as a whole (Pedersen, 1997). Thus, after the leader acknowledges that Raphael and Jorge differ in their thoughts and objectives, even though they are brothers, the two group members and the group as a whole will begin to make progress in achieving individual goals.
• Myth 3:Group member differences do not matter and seldom, if ever, affect the process and outcome of task and psychoeducational groups. The basis of this myth is that task and psychoeducational groups are not affected by processes inherent in them as much as counseling and psychotherapy groups are. These groups are believed to be primarily content oriented. Yet in getting to content, task and psychoeducational group members are influenced by the beliefs, experiences, and cultural interactions that are a part of their background. Therefore, culture plays a major part in how and when members in task and psychoeducational groups interact. For instance, DeLucia-Waack (1996) relates the story of trying to lead a stress management workshop for a group of eight male Italian students who were new to the United States. Although well intentioned and well prepared, she found that these men did not think a woman should be teaching a class of men and that their cultural norms did not permit the disclosure of weaknesses to other men, let alone a woman!
• Myth 4:Group work theories are appropriate for all clients all the time. Theories on groups and how they work, at least in most of North America, are, as pointed out previously, “based on Eurocentric notions of mental health and functional relationships” (DeLucia-Waack, 1996, p. 221). These tenets of health include a focus on the individual, verbalization as the primary means of communication, unstructured interactions among group members, an emphasis on risk taking, and the importance of the group leader or facilitator. In reality, these emphases are not shared worldwide. Group members are unique. What may be the norm for one may not be the norm for another. Thus, if groups are going to work, members must discuss norms and structure a framework that will be helpful to all.

If group leaders and members notice and address myths before the group begins, such as in the screening stage of the process, then greater understanding and a better outcome will most likely result. Along with a focus on myths, group workers must help the group to formulate and reach appropriate goals, which may include advocacy as well as understanding and appreciation. The fact is that “multicultural group work represents a powerful tool for helping and healing in the context of human diversity” (Anderson, 2007, p. 224).

Brief Case

Myra’s Myths and Mindsets

Myra’s family had told her of negative experiences with White people over the years that had led her to believe she should not trust Whites because they would take advantage of her whenever they could. Thus, when a White woman befriended Myra in her counseling group, Myra was suspicious. She knew the woman must want something and that she would pay a price for friendship. Therefore, Myra avoided the woman and seldom spoke to her.

Later, when the group had a reunion, Myra was surprised to find out that the woman she had avoided was good friends with many of her friends. She was shocked. She could not believe it. Not only that, the woman had some situations similar to Myra’s. By avoiding the White group member, Myra had missed a number of opportunities for companionship, support, and insight.

Questions

• How do you think myths and mindsets can be overcome? What historical examples can you think of where the thinking of one or more individuals was changed? What insights can you glean from such examples?

Goals of Diverse and Multicultural Groups

Like all successful forms of group work, diverse and multicultural groups are goal directed. Although goals will differ from group to group, these objectives may be described as falling into categories that are primarily remedial, preventive, or task oriented. Goals also focus on intra- and interpersonal processes. In addition, goals are geared toward both general and specific topics that are of concern to those within their ranks (Corey, 2016). Thus, a primary challenge of conducting diverse and multicultural groups relates to the different views, values, and interpersonal styles that members display, as well as how these forces are managed and highlighted in productive ways. If the group is conducted properly, then members who differ from one another will begin to trust and help one another in learning new, different, and productive ways of acting and interrelating (Pedersen, 1997). Through such a process, individuals, subgroups, and the group as a whole will benefit. For instance, if Maria assists Jon in verbalizing his frustrations with school policies, then the two may become emotionally closer to each other and work more cooperatively with their fellow group members in proposing new and better school policies as part of an agenda that promotes fairness, equality, and social justice.

According to DeLucia-Waack (1996), diverse and multicultural groups, regardless of their emphasis, have three common goals:

1. to understand the situation that brought the individuals to the group from a cultural perspective;
2. “to approach all events and behavior in the group from a functional perspective” (p. 171); and
3. to help members make sense of “new behaviors, beliefs, and skills within a cultural context.” (p. 171).

These goals hold up across group types, including task/work, psychoeducational, counseling, and psychotherapy (Anderson, 2007). If participants do not comprehend why they are in a group, what they can learn from the group, and what implications their new behaviors, beliefs, or skills have for them within the context of where they live, then the group experience will be of minimal use to them.

Reflection

• When have you ever been in a group where it was obvious that one or more members did not want to be a part of the group? How did their actions affect the group? How do you think their actions could have been muted, modified, or clarified so that the group would have functioned better?

Assessing Cultural Diversity in a Group

It is imperative that group workers understand the cultural backgrounds of their clients before attempting to work with them and that they have a broad and culture-centered perspective. As previously noted, groups composed of people from culturally different backgrounds will have diverse values and worldviews (DeLucia, Coleman, & Jensen-Scott, 1992). By recognizing these differences and the cultures from which they spring, group leaders can design appropriate interventions (Leach & Aten, 2010; Pedersen, 1997). However, the extent of diversity is dependent on a number of factors, including time, acculturation processes, people’s socioeconomic environment, and even the number of group members from a particular background. (By the way, including just one member of a distinct group in a larger group is usually not productive. That individual may have difficulty identifying with others in the group and may be stereotyped by the group.)

Therefore, group workers need to assess multiple factors that will either benefit or hinder the group’s development. This type of assessment is complex. For instance, some people may be deeply affected by their collective history, whereas the influence is minimal for others. In making an assessment, the pregroup screening stage of forming the group is the place to begin. In screening, group leaders may keep in mind that some cultural groups do better in certain types of group environments. For instance, many Asian Americans do not respond well to traditional group psychotherapy processes because their culture teaches them not to share personal problems or confront others in public (Chung &Bemak, 2014; Singh & Hays, 2008). In contrast, other cultural groups, such as African Americans and Hispanic/Latino/a Americans, often do extremely well in a variety of group settings (McWhirter, McWhirter, & McWhirter, 1988).

For most cultural groups, core group skills and principles will work on some level. However, for other groups, depending on their specific composition, there is a need to develop culture-specific strategies. Thus, in planning and implementing a culturally diverse group, the leader must conceptualize and work broadly, in terms of what is generally known, and specifically, in terms of the individuals who actually make up the group. Outcomes in groups, “are dependent, in part, on the match between the group leader’s and the client’s respective stages of racial consciousness” (Johnson et al., 1995, p. 145). Therefore, before Dwight, a European American, decides to lead a multicultural counseling group of international students, he must ask himself questions about his own cultural awareness, his knowledge of individualistic versus collectivist views of culture, and the background of the members of his group. Furthermore, he must examine the factors that inhibit effective intercultural communication (e.g., apathy, ethnocentrism, inexperience, impatience, animosity, prejudice) and the factors that contribute to effective intercultural communication (e.g., experiential learning, cultural identity, language, values, and counselor knowledge and personal characteristics) (Okech, Pimpleton, Vannatta, and Champe, 2015).

 

Leadership in Culturally Diverse Groups

As implied previously, before beginning a group, it is important for leaders to examine their own thoughts and feelings about people who are culturally or otherwise distinct from themselves. Self-awareness regarding cross-cultural interactions is necessary for individuals who would lead (Bieschke, Gehlert, Wilson, Matthews, & Wade, 2003). Such an examination allows leaders to deal constructively with prejudices, biases, and racist elements in their lives that have either been passed on from a previous generation or learned through isolated incidents and generalized. For example, a group leader of Asian American descent who grew up in an affluent but isolated neighborhood might have negative feelings about working with Mexican Americans if he or she has never encountered individuals from such a background before and has heard disparaging remarks about them as a group. The point is that when thoughts and emotions about culturally different groups of people are not dealt with before a group begins, they may well play themselves out detrimentally within the group itself.

In conducting groups that include members who are culturally distinct, leaders must sensitize themselves continually to cultural variables and individual differences so they become more conscious of the issues of culture that influence their own backgrounds and those of group members (DeLucia-Waack, 2004). Anderson (2007) has developed a “diversity wheel of salient human differences” that encompasses five factors every group leader needs to be conscious of: culture, worldview, identities, statuses, and demographics (see Figure 8.1). “A culturally responsive group leader is aware of his or her own cultural values, assumptions, and biases and how these might impact upon the group process” (Brinson & Lee, 1997, p. 47). He or she also is “autonomous—that is, the group leader is comfortable with his or her identity and able to empathize with culturally different group members’ feelings.

 

Figure 8.1

Diversity Wheel of Salient Human Differences.

Figure 8.1 Full Alternative Text

Skilled diverse and multicultural group leaders realize that among group members, multicultural differences tend to occur early in the life of a group, “and discomfort associated with multicultural issues tends to occur towards the end of groups” (Bieschke et al., 2003, p. 325). This process of examination and “becoming” inevitably lasts a lifetime. However, parts of it are achieved in stages, with the group leader becoming more skilled with each culturally diverse group conducted (Marbley, 2004). Such groups give life and possibility to individuals involved with them because differences in group members become assets, not liabilities, in the group’s development. In addition, there is an understanding of how values and beliefs are shaped and influenced by social environments.

The awareness and abilities of group leaders in culturally diverse groups may be increased in multiple ways. Strategies most often employed are as follows:

• Consultation with minority counselors about working with groups they may already be serving
• Having group leaders become immersed in culturally enriching and sensitive traditions such as the observation of significant holidays or festivals
• Proactively taking note of the needs and issues of minority groups
• Taking language lessons and pronunciation training so as to be comfortable and correct when speaking a culturally specific circumstances (Johnson et al., 1995).

A fifth strategy is for group leaders to examine their family as the place where they learned about their culture and relationships with others (Ivey, Ivey, &Zalaquett, 2014). Constructing a genogram and interviewing family members about their cultural experiences and expectations can often give insight into the sources of particular beliefs and outlooks.

A final strategy is the employment of both didactic and experiential education. On the didactic side, there is the study of cultures and the heritages of people. This type of knowledge can be obtained through reading books and articles that relate to global and specific traditions and customs in the lives of various people (Chiu, 1997). On the experiential side, course work can be set up to sensitize group workers to themselves and group members who differ from them. Integrating this cultural knowledge into real groups is the challenge.

Group leaders-in-training may need to work through the strong emotional reactions and paralyzing feelings they experience when dealing with multicultural issues on any level. One way to handle the intense emotions, such as guilt or shame, that come with such a process is through the use of small, supportive, and accepting groups (Parker, Freytes, Kaufman, Woodruff, & Hord, 2004). This type of group, which is nonjudgmental in nature, may help neophyte group workers share thoughts, feelings, and actions they would not do otherwise. Through such a process, multicultural counseling competencies are enhanced.

In summary, to be a leader of a diverse and multicultural group with skills and competencies, an individual must:

• have “an awareness of different cultural worldviews and the subsequent impact on group work interventions;”
• have a self-awareness, in particular of racial identity and personal and cultural worldviews; and
• have a focus “on the development of a repertoire of culturally relevant group work interventions.” (DeLucia-Waack, 2004, p. 167).

Brief Case

Edward Enters a Multicultural Group as a Leader

Edward is a native of Africa and the son of immigrant parents. He is bilingual. Until age 4, he lived in Kenya. Since then, he has lived in Canada. As a mental health worker, he has decided to start a group for recent immigrants from Africa. He is aware of his heritage as well as his values, but he is not as familiar with the lives of recent immigrants.

Because he is married and the father of young children, Edward does not have time to participate in many new cultural experiences. However, he approaches his group with new knowledge he has attained through attending a recent course on the lives of African immigrants. He has also conducted personal interviews with some recent immigrants. Therefore, he believes he is prepared to address situations affecting his group members when the group begins.

Questions

• What else might Edward do to make himself more competent? What do you consider to be your greatest strength in addressing diversity and multicultural issues?

 

Working with Different Cultural Populations in Groups

The 2016 U.S. census data indicated increasing diversity in the population of the United States. The following percentages reveal how many of the 323 million respondents reported themselves to be of a particular race: African American/Black, 13.3%; Native American, 1.3%; Asian American, 5.7%; Hispanic, 17.8%; European American (White Alone Non-Hispanic), 61.3%; two or more races, 2.6% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016).

Accompanying this growing diversity is the increasing need for professional and personal sensitivity to others in groups, especially multicultural groups (DeLucia et al., 1992). “Implicit in multicultural group work is the fostering of acceptance, respect, and tolerance for diversity within and between members” (Bemak& Chung, 2004, p. 36). Therefore, group workers from all cultures in the United States will need to expand their knowledge about cultural variables. People from various cultures do not think or act alike, nor do they come to groups for the same reasons. Among the most important pieces of knowledge group workers need regarding diversity in groups is information about group process in naturally occurring groups—for example, the African American church, Latino/a clubs, Native American Indian tribal councils, and Asian American family groups. “In many cases, group process in these kinship units often significantly predates what we know as group work” (Lee, 1995, p. 4).

One dynamic that occurs in multicultural group counseling is the use of defense mechanisms, particularly splitting and projection identification, which are used, “in groups to protect against feelings of inadequacy and vulnerability, which underlie racial and cultural prejudice” (Cheng, Chae, & Gunn, 1998, p. 373). Excessive splitting and projection identification lead to scapegoating that in turn leads to fragmentation and a failure to build a sense of community within the group.

While acquiring process knowledge, group workers should attune themselves as well to the nonverbal behaviors of group members. Nonverbal behavior can have various meanings among different cultures. For instance, cultural differences in eye contact abound (Ivey et al., 2014). European Americans usually value direct eye contact when listening and less while talking, whereas African Americans often have the reverse pattern. Likewise, direct eye contact may be avoided entirely by some groups of Native Americans when talking about something serious. Distance is another nonverbal behavior that should be understood. Conversational distance of an arm’s length is comfortable for many North Americans, but many Hispanics/Latinos/as prefer half that distance. The point is that, in conducting any group, cultural heritage will influence levels of comfort and patterns of interaction for better or for worse, depending on the knowledge of group leaders and other group members.

“Although extensive literature testifies to great interest in multicultural work, little is known about group counseling outcomes with specific U.S. racial minorities” (Stark-Rose et al., 2012). Some of the qualities that affect particular minority and majority cultural groups we are aware of follow. It should be noted that although these characteristics may generally apply, they, “warrant ongoing scrutiny because they are based more on anecdotal reports than on systematic research and because they often fail to consider within group differences (e.g., socioeconomic status, acculturation level) and between group differences (e.g., between Japanese Americans and Vietnamese Americans)” (Merta, 1995, pp. 573–574). Individuals within a group and even groups in different regions of a country will vary in their customs and traditions. Therefore, group workers can never assume individuals from certain backgrounds will behave in a set way. In fact, to make such an assumption is to stereotype and act with prejudice.

African Americans

Group work with African Americans has been written about extensively. However, more than 50% of articles have focused on women and youth, with a noticeable shortage of articles on groups for men (Stark-Rose et al., 2012). As a group, African Americans are quite diverse, and within-group differences are great. Yet collectively, most African Americans share a common bond that is the result of the legacy of slavery and bondage that prevailed in the United States from 1619 to 1865. During those almost 250 years, African Americans were bought and sold as chattel. The history of discrimination that followed their freedom from slavery, such as Jim Crow legislation, segregation, and other forms of racism, has influenced most members of this group in significant negative ways. For example, skepticism or suspicion of European Americans is pervasive among African Americans (Feagin, 2014; Gossett, 1998).

As a group, African Americans have historically avoided the use of professional helping services, including group work (Stark-Rose et al., 2012). Yet group work is appropriate for counseling, psychoeducation, and working with African Americans in other ways because of their collectivist culture. Group work is especially relevant if it is “grounded in the African American worldview” (Williams, Frame, & Green, 1999, p. 260). Commonly shared positive values of that worldview include the importance of family, creative expression, and spirituality.

“African American culture has typically provided a network of support systems through community resources,” which the group may parallel (Pack-Brown & Fleming, 2004, p. 183). African American culture is communalism that is manifest in strong kinship ties and an emphasis on social responsibility for others, even those outside of the immediate family (Helm & James, 2010; Perrone &Sedlacek, 2000). A “‘safety in numbers’ principle makes it easier” for some African Americans to disclose before a group than before an individual professional helper (Merta, 1995, p. 574).

In groups, African Americans may share, cooperate, and have their personal experiences validated. “In addition, group counseling experiences may help African Americans increase their sense of hope and optimism, decrease their feelings of alienation, develop more effective coping techniques, and acquire more effective socialization skills” (Ford, 1997, p. 103).

“The African American community often presents a challenge to group leaders who are unfamiliar with the African American worldview and life experiences” (Pack-Brown & Fleming, 2004, p. 189). For instance, in groups, African Americans express themselves in various ways, such as displaying, “their emotions in culturally specific language patterns or by displaying nonverbal behavior in a demonstrative manner” (Brinson & Lee, 1997, p. 48). Therefore, when leading a group composed of African Americans, a group leader who is not African American must be aware of both the verbal and the nonverbal traditions of members and not ascribe negative connotations to normal means of expression. Likewise, in leading groups whose membership contains only some African Americans, a non–African American not only needs to realize regular cultural ways of expression but also must help educate and sensitize other non–African Americans to these patterns. Steen has created the acronym KOFFE (Knowledge, Open Communication, Faith, Family, and Empowerment), as a group counseling model for working with African Americans (Steen, Shi, &Hockersmith, 2014).

Other ways of working with African Americans in counseling, psychoeducational, and therapeutic settings involve the creative arts. “Music, poetry, literature, folklore and graphic expression” may be useful aids in promoting group interaction (Brinson & Lee, 1997, p. 52). Gender issues are often unique, and because of discrimination, oppression, racism, historical hostility, and cultural stereotypes, getting African American men to participate in counseling or group work is a challenge (Muller, 2002). African American women are, as a group, more receptive, but they, “must contend with long-standing negative, stereotypical image [too] of being Black and female” (Pack-Brown & Fleming, 2004, p. 188). Therefore, group workers must be sensitive and appropriate in involving this segment of the African American population in groups.

In work with African Americans, especially if the group workers are European Americans, care must be taken in setting up the group so that members will be able to share freely and benefit from the group. The process of setting up may therefore involve not only the topics of sessions but self-examination and input from professionals in the African American community as well (Muller, 2002). For African American women on predominantly White college campuses, an Afrocentric group counseling approach has been found to be beneficial (Brown, Lipford-Sanders, & Shaw, 1995). Such an approach centers on positive African values within a cultural context. In addition, an African American Women’s Spirituality Group has been found to be an effective intervention for African American women because it connects them with others around shared cultural experiences (Williams et al., 1999). Two resources that introduce models for group work with African Americans are the videos I Am Because We Are! Afrocentric Approaches to Group Work (Pack-Brown & Whittington-Clark, 2002) and Images of Me: A Guide to Group Work with African American Females (Pack-Brown, Whittington-Clark, & Parker, 1998).

Hispanic/Latino/a Americans

As with other ethnic and cultural groups, there is considerable variety in populations that are characterized as Hispanic/Latinos/as. There are four major Hispanic/Latino/a subgroups in the United States: Mexican Americans (65%), Central and South Americans (21%), Puerto Ricans (10%), and Cuban Americans (4%) (Diller, 2014; Rivera, Fernandez, & Hendricks, 2014).

 

Differences include the use of language, religious rituals, and celebrations (Villalba, 2010). Therefore, if group workers are going to be effective leaders, they should be aware of different Hispanic/Latino/a groups and the cultural gulfs as well as bridges that separate and unite them (Altarriba& Bauer, 1998).

The professional literature notes that group work with Hispanic/Latino/a Americans can be beneficial. Groups for this population take a number of forms and can be quite powerful. For instance, Gonzalez-Lopez and Taylor (1997) found that group therapy with Latinos and Latinas can transform their thinking.

In Hispanic/Latino/a groups, counselors should generally be active, validating, and supportive (Baca & Koss-Chioino, 1997). In addition, recommendations have been made regarding language, especially in groups in which members’ first language is Spanish. For instance, Espin (1987) recommends that leaders of such groups be bilingual: For many members of Hispanic/Latino/a groups, Spanish is the language of emotions because it was in Spanish that affective meanings were originally encoded. Salgado de Synder (1987) also recommends that Spanish be used in Hispanic/Latino/a groups, along with English, to facilitate the emergence and discussion of taboo topics, such as sexuality, that may have been lost in the process of acculturation.

In working with Hispanic/Latino/a groups, sex-role socialization issues and cultural identity may affect the process, too. Hispanic women, as a group, tend to be more reserved than Hispanic men (Arredondo, Gallardo-Cooper, Delgado-Romero, & Zapata, 2014). Therefore, the group leader may need to use a skill such as drawing out to help Hispanic women—who have been most socialized in their cultural tradition—to voice their opinions and actively contribute to the group. One way to accomplish this goal is through the use of a “comadre or compadre” group approach where group members offer social support and a sense of community like extended family members (Rayle, Sand, Brucato, & Ortega, 2006). In such a group setting, stress may be reduced and depression modified while a sense of belonging, respect, and affirmation is enhanced. This effect may be especially notable in recently immigrated, monolingual Mexican women.

On college campuses, groups that support Chicanas (women of Mexican descent) may also be valuable and effective in helping them succeed. One such group, built around Yalom’s 11 therapeutic factors, was found to help Chicanas, “build personal and professional support systems, feel validated with respect to common experiences and educational concerns, develop skills and strategies to negotiate personal and educational difficulties, and discuss cultural values within a group context” (Gloria, 1999, p. 256). Likewise, Hispanic/Latino men may be reluctant to disclose information they perceive as threatening their masculinity or machismo (Baruth, Manning, & Lee, 2017). For this reason, group workers need to be encouraging and patient in conducting groups with Hispanic/Latino men.

Considerable anecdotal information is available about the effectiveness of Hispanic/Latino/a group work in such areas as academic skills, value clarification, problem solving, self-esteem, and pride in cultural identity (Merta, 1995). For instance, Baca and Koss-Chioino (1997) have presented a model for group counseling with Mexican American adolescents specifically targeted toward teens in this population who have behavior problems, including substance misuse. Likewise, Villalba, Ivers, and Ohlms (2010) have found that Cuento therapy, a culturally relevant form of bibliotherapy using stories to convey morals or themes, is effective with middle school children living in rural emerging Latino/a communities to enrich the school experience of these children.

In preparing Hispanic/Latinos/as for a group, leaders are wise to consider minimizing resistance by avoiding such words as “counseling” or “psychotherapy,” which can be equivalent to the word “crazy” (Rivera et al., 2014). The leader also needs to be aware of the importance of rules and gender roles (e.g., marianismo and machismo) and the part each of them, and gender overall, plays in the functioning of the group.

Brief Case

Tanya Is Tempted to Betray Her Heritage

Tanya is the only individual of Hispanic/Latina heritage in her psychoeducational group. Her parents immigrated to North America from Mexico when she was a child. Most of her life she has lived in a “White neighborhood” and played with children whose native language is English. As she learns in her group, there are many cultures within the United States, and her Hispanic/Latina one is strong and filled with many traditions.

At first, Tanya is proud of her heritage, but she is teased outside the group for that. Therefore, she begins to speak up less in the group and her comments become more limited. It is obvious to the group leader, Hernando, that Tanya wants to say more than she is saying. He wants to help her own her feelings, and yet he does not want her to create such a stir that there is a backlash.

Questions

• What do you think Hernando could do to help Tanya and the group be more accepting and open? What do you think he should avoid doing?

Asian Americans

Asian Americans are one of the fastest growing groups in the United States, comprising over 18 million people, or approximately 5.6% of the total U.S. population (Chung &Bemak, 2014). The demographic profile of Asian Americans includes an array of more than 43 disparate cultural groups. Each group has its own distinct historical and sociopolitical backgrounds, languages, identity, issues, cultures, and challenges (Chung &Bemak, 2014; Sandhu, 1999). Thus, although Asian Americans are often lumped into one main category, there are wide intergroup and intragroup differences that may make it difficult for group workers to deal effectively with unique issues of particular individuals (Chen & Han, 2001). Furthermore, the myth that members of this population are the “model minority” (i.e., highly successful with no serious problems) is exactly that—a myth. In actuality, Asians in the United States not only face many of the same problems as other minorities, such as racism and stereotyping, but also face pressure to be a model minority since many Asians have achieved so much. The model minority coverage Asians receive in the press makes it very difficult for Asians who cannot meet the high achievement standards of this model. Therefore, for group workers, Asian Americans are a challenge. Members of this population must be understood and worked with beyond the myths that surround them.

One issue that must be addressed in working with Asian American culture groups is the disparity, “between group work values (e.g., openness, expression of feelings, directness) and the cultural values of Asian Americans (e.g., verbal nonassertiveness, reluctance to display strong emotions in front of strangers, and unwillingness to disclose personal problems to strangers)” (Merta, 1995, p. 574). The importance of saving face (not embarrassing oneself or disgracing one’s family) is also highly prized by many Asian Americans (Kim, Atkinson, & Umemoto, 2001; Singh & Hays, 2008). The means for preventing a clash in values and the loss of face may be demanding and require an adjustment in the ways leaders conduct groups, especially counseling and therapy groups. Many Asian Americans have been taught to respect authority and see a group leader as an individual of authority (Chung &Bemak, 2014; DeLucia-Waack, 1996b). Because of this cultural introjection, they will not challenge the group leader even when such a challenge might be beneficial to everyone in the group.

One way to work with groups of Asian Americans, especially college students, is to offer, “groups which focus on practical concerns to them rather than on forums which focus on more personal concerns” (Cheng, 1996, p. 10). For work with college students, groups that feature issues such as career choices, immigration, academic topics, and communication skills seem to be successful and well attended. Cheng (1996) also recommends that groups for Asian American students be short term (one to five sessions) in addition to theme centered.

Another successful way of conducting groups with Asian Americans is a stage-specific interactive approach (Chen & Han, 2001). In this model, group workers “carefully respond to specific tasks and challenges that arise in each stage” of the group (p. 113). For example, in the forming stage, group leaders need to realize that nonverbal messages from Asian American members, such as silence, may convey respect rather than resistance, and they must treat these behaviors accordingly. Similarly, in the working stage of the group, leaders need to realize that emphasizing Asian Americans’ strengths, rather than their pathologies, helps them to move more toward a sense of choice and control.

Overall, most kinds of groups that are well designed seem to work in a therapeutic way for Asian Americans. A particular population that may find group work beneficial is Southeast Asian refugees. “Several studies have pointed toward its effectiveness with this population” (Chung, Bemak, & Okazaki, 1997, p. 207). Highly traumatized refugees may especially find solace in group therapy (Chung &Bemak, 2014).

Reflection

• If you are not Asian American, how do you think you could build rapport within a group that includes a number of Asian Americans? If you are Asian American, what suggestions would you make about conducting a group that includes Asian Americans? What would you do differently than you usually do? What would be the same?

Native American Indians

“Long before the notion of group counseling was a glimmer in the eyes of the early pioneers of the counseling profession, Native peoples throughout North and South America were using group approaches for therapeutic benefits of creating and maintaining harmony and balance in the personal, social, environmental, and spiritual realms of people’s lives” (Garrett, Garrett, & Brotherton, 2001, p. 17). Native American Indians generally share some common values, such as an emphasis on cooperation, health, holism, sharing, spirituality, healing, and an extended-family orientation (Colmani&Merta, 1999; Dufrene & Coleman, 1992; McWhirter & Robbins, 2014). Thus, in work with Native American Indians, groups have been found to be more appropriate than individual counseling (Appleton & Dykeman, 1996). Four crucial elements relevant to wellness from a Native American Indian perspective are belonging, mastery, independence, independence, and generosity (Garrett, Brubaker, Torres-Rivera, West-Olatunji, & Conwill, 2008). These variables are best discussed within a group setting in regard to balancing them for wellness, because they involve more than just a single individual. Therefore, healers in Native American Indian society rarely treat individuals in isolation from their family, friends, and neighbors.

Of the approximately 5 million Native American Indians in the United States and Alaska, approximately 50% reside in urban areas, so it is important to consider the degree of traditionalism versus the degree of acculturation to mainstream American values and cultural standards before treating members of this population (Garrett, 2004). In general, Native American Indians’ cultural values revolve around harmony, noninterference, and the balancing of dualities.

Yet in spite of the strong tradition of groups in Native American Indian cultures, members of this population face barriers in participating in many mainstream group experiences. These barriers include a distrust of institutions because of European colonization, different perspectives on health and well-being, an aversion to the confessional nature of some groups, and logistic and practical considerations (McWhirter & Robbins, 2014).

However, several group approaches to working with Native American Indians seem to work well. Two approaches, for young men in particular, are vision quest and the sweat lodge ceremony. In vision quest, young men coming of age retreat to a secluded spot in nature and sit in a sacred circle where they deprive themselves of food, water, sleep, and shelter for a number of days, seeking an auditory or visual message about themselves, others, and the earth. After they return to society, they share their vision in a ritualized group setting. The quest is deeply spiritual, involving social support and interpersonal learning. It involves such group therapeutic factors as universality, cohesion, and acceptance (McWhirter & Robbins, 2014).

The sweat lodge ceremony is also a life transformation ceremony, but it may include individuals of any age. About 10 participants undergo a ritualized cleansing of the mind, body, and spirit through structured processes in a small turtle-shaped dwelling known as a sweat lodge (Colmani&Merta, 1999; Csordas, 2017; Garrett & Osborne, 1995). The sweat lodge, where blasts of hot steam are created by pouring a special mixture of water and herbs over heated rocks, becomes “a type of counseling center and place for group therapy” (Lake, 1987, p. 8). The four-phase process of the sweat lodge ceremony is similar to other group process models in that it includes an entrance (exploration), a threshold (transition), purification (working), and an emergence (consolidation/closure). Within this process and in other gatherings is the talking circle tradition (Garrett, 2004). The group leader uses a go-round procedure, and all assembled use “I” statements to express their thoughts and feelings, in both prayer and conversation, about themselves, their families, their connections with others, and their future. The process itself includes the 11 therapeutic factors identified by Yalom, but it contains strong moral-cognitive development and cultural identity components for Native American Indians, too (Colmani&Merta, 1999).

Research also supports the use of art therapy in groups for Native American Indians. “Art media provide clients culturally sensitive avenues for expression through nonverbal forms” (Appleton & Dykeman, 1996, p. 225). In a group consisting of Native American Indians and people of other cultures, the arts can be an especially powerful form of communication because, “American Indian group members may be reserved in their level of self-disclosure when they are among non-Indians” (Brinson & Lee, 1997, p. 48). Art therapies in groups overcome barriers of culture, socioeconomic status, and other surface differences while inspiring, directing, and healing intrapersonal and interpersonal rifts.

The inner circle/outer circle approach is a fourth way of working with Native American Indians in groups. Group members divide and sit in two concentric circles. Inner circle members then describe what is painful or frustrating in their lives with their fists clenched so they can feel the tension physically as well as emotionally (Garrett et al., 2001). They then turn around to the outer circle members, who sit with open palms. When the outer circle group has granted permission, the tensions of the inner circle are slowly released into their open hands. Each outer circle member in turn takes the opportunity to share with his or her inner circle member specific themes, key words, or underlying feelings. The outer circle member may request guidance or support from a community circle outside of the outer group and use the insight or action from the community circle with the inner circle group member. Much of the therapeutic value of this approach comes from the interaction of the circles and the bringing together of people physically, mentally, and spiritually through an interrelationship process.

Overall, Native Americans tend, “to value a group orientation and may find group work the preferred modality of treatment . . . [especially if the group leader is] perceived by the Native American group members as genuine, considerate, and nonmanipulative” (Merta, 1995, p. 576).

Arab Americans

Arab Americans are a fast growing and mosaic group coming from 22 countries as diverse as Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Yemen, Tunisia, and Palestine. There are more than 3 million Arab Americans in the United States, most of whom are Christian (approximately 66%), with a sizable portion being Muslim (24%) (Nasser-McMillan, Gonzales, & Mohamed, 2014). However, “Arabic and Muslim cultures often overlap. Thus, although the majority of Arab Americans are Christian, Muslim traditions and values are often upheld by Muslim and Christian Arab Americans alike” (Nasser-McMillan & Hakim-Larson, 2003, p. 151).

Arab Americans vary among themselves. Potential differences include social class, level of education, language (Arabic has distinct dialects), relative conservatism of the country of origin, time of immigration, and level of acculturation (Abudabbeh& Aseel, 1999). Despite such cultural variations, sufficient commonalities exist that special attention from service providers is warranted.

Arab cultures tend to be of a high context rather than of a low context, such as in North American society. Therefore, Arab Americans as a group usually differ significantly from traditional Americans in that they emphasize social stability and the collective over the individual.

The family is the most significant element in most Arab American subcultures, with the individual’s life dominated by family and family relations. Education is valued in Arab American households, with approximately 4 in 10 Americans of Arab descent having earned a bachelor’s degree or higher (aaiusa.org, search for “demographics”).

When working with Arab Americans, especially immigrants, it is crucial for group workers to remember there is a sharp delineation of gender roles in such families. Furthermore, patriarchal patterns of authority, conservative sexual standards, and the importance of self-sacrifice prevail. There is also an emphasis on the importance of honor and shame because people in Arab cultures seek outside help from helpers such as group workers only as a last resort (Abudabbeh& Aseel, 1999). Complicating matters even more is the fallout, tension, and distrust from September 11, 2001 (Beitin& Allen, 2005; Nasser-McMillan et al., 2014).

Therefore, clinical recommendations for working with groups in this population include the following:

• Being aware of their cultural context
• Being mindful of the issue of leadership and the importance that authority figures play in their lives
• Being attentive to the part that the extended family plays in decision making
• Being sensitive to the large part culture plays as an active and tangible co-participant in treatment