Differences Between Multicultural Competency and Cultural Humility Cultural humility is a conceptual framework that was first developed and utilized in medicine and nursing in the 1990s. Since then, it has become more widely applied to counseling. The framework addresses some shortcomings within the cultural competency and multicultural counseling frameworks. The cultural humility approach differs from the multicultural competency approach in that it recognizes that knowledge of different cultural backgrounds is insufficient to develop an effective counseling relationship with each individual. It shifts the focus from the counselor’s accumulation of knowledge to the counselor’s self-understanding and a stance characterized by openness (Travis, 2021). While competence suggests mastery, humility is an intrapersonal and interpersonal approach that cultivates person-centered care (Leeks, 2019).
the “biased assumptions about populations viewed as ‘the other’ at various times in the country’s history” as well as in the present (Carten, 2016, p. xlii). Othering assumes that various oppressed and marginalized populations are different from the American norm, commonly understood as White, middle class, able-bodied, straight, male, and individually responsible for any difficulties they may experience. Multicultural counseling and cultural competency frameworks commonly assume that the counselor is White and that clients are the other and set out to describe what various racial and ethnic groups believe and how they act as a group. On the other hand, a cultural humility framework emphasizes self-understanding as primary to understanding others. To facilitate self-understanding, cultural humility encourages ongoing critical self-reflection, asking the counselor to delve into their cultural identity and its effect on counseling relationships. Cultural humility does not assume the counselor’s identity and especially challenges White practitioners to explore and understand their White identity. Table 5 illustrates the differences between (multi)cultural competence and cultural humility frameworks.
The cultural competency and multicultural counseling frameworks are most often criticized for creating a model that serves “other” ethnic, racial, and various minority groups (Carten, 2016, p. xlii) while not acknowledging Whiteness as an identity and as a culture. “Othering” is the term used for Table 5: (Multi) Cultural Competence and Cultural Humility (Multi) Cultural Competence
Cultural Humility
● Acknowledges layers of cultural identity. ● Recognizes the danger of stereotyping. ● Assumes the problem is a lack of knowledge, awareness, and skills to work across lines of difference. ● Individuals and organizations develop the values, knowledge, and skills to work across lines of difference.
● Acknowledges layers of cultural identity. ● Understands that working with cultural differences is an ongoing, lifelong process. ● Emphasizes understanding self as well as understanding other clients. ● Assumes an understanding of self, communities, and colleagues is needed to understand clients. ● Requires humility, recognition, and understanding of power imbalances within the client–counselor relationship.
Perspectives on culture
Assumptions
● Knowledge ● Skills ● Values ● Behaviors
● Ongoing critical self-reflection ● Lifelong learning ● Institutional accountability and change ● Addressing and challenging power imbalances
Components
● Client ● Practitioner ● Institution ● Larger community
Stakeholders
Practitioner
● A “young concept” ● Empirical data in early stages of development ● Conceptual framework still being developed
● Suggests an end point ● Can lead to stereotyping ● Applied universally rather than based on a specific client’s experience(s) ● Issues of social justice not adequately addressed ● Focus on gaining knowledge about specific cultures
Critiques
Note : Adapted from “Mastery to accountability: Cultural humility as an alternative to cultural competence,” by Fisher-Borne, M., et al., 2015. Social Work Education, 34 , 165-181.
Multicultural and cultural competency frameworks inevitably lead to stereotyping various racial and ethnic groups by attempting to define and categorize entire ethnicities by a few cultural traditions and practices. Examples of such stereotypes include the following: Asian Americans push their children to succeed in school and to be obedient to adults, Latina/o men have “machismo,” and African Americans are assertive (Lum, 2011). Although the intent to understand the diversity within the U.S. is
meant to be helpful to counselors, it often strengthens the status quo (i.e., “White” as the norm and all other racial and ethnic groups as outside that norm). Because of the desire to describe various racial and ethnic standards, multicultural counseling and cultural competency frameworks overlook the diversity within ethnic and racial minority groups and White groups (Lum, 2011). For instance, Asian American and Latina/o categorizations lump together individuals from a wide array of countries, suggesting,
EliteLearning.com/Social-Work
Book Code: SWUS1524
Page 28
Powered by FlippingBook