Tchet Dereic Dorman
December 2009
Keeping it Safe versus
Keeping it Real: A Comparative Analysis of Intergroup Dialogue and
Transformation Social Therapy
|
On
Saturday, December 12, 2009, I woke up to the sound of three gun shots, “pow,
pow, pow,” right outside my house, and the screeching sound of a car pulling
away. I laid in my bed hoping it was just a car backfiring. But given the
reality of my neighborhood, rich in ethnic, racial, and class diversity, though
full of neglected citizens, I decided to at least look out my window to
determine what happened. What I came to discover some 15 minutes later was not
only that those were gunshots, but, in fact, one bullet had come through my
living room window.
During
the few seconds when I had hoped for a car backfiring, a frightening vision had
occurred to me that it could’ve been a bullet that struck me or maybe even one
of my children. That image brought me out of my stupor to finally deal with
reality.
As
we examined the living room to determine where the bullet had landed, during
the 90 minutes before the police finally arrived, I was reminded of the reality
of violence that surrounds me on a daily basis. Given that my two young nieces
had slept in the living room that night, abruptly awakened to gun shots at
6:50am, I contemplated the consistent danger extant all around me, not only
perpetrated by my oppressors but also
my brothers.
This
morning, I did not fear that the bullets leaving a hole in my window were put
there by some racist European American men. I knew, without a shadow of a doubt,
that the deaths that almost occurred, and could easily have occurred, would
have been the result of the actions of other African Americans.
While
I recognize the systematic injustices based on race and class inflicted on
African Americans unequivocally results in hopelessness, despair, and violent
behaviors, this morning’s incident was not only not surprising to me and the
other young children in my home, it also caused minimal immediate alarm.
African Americans, especially those living in America’s urban enclaves, even
those with $300,000 houses, respond rather matter-of-factly to violence within
their neighborhoods, schools and even families.
My
biological brother is serving a twenty five year sentence for burglary, armed
robbery and assault. When asked by others why he’s in prison, I usually don’t mention
the rape because of the shame I feel for my brother, family and especially me.
When he first told me of the assault, some fifteen years ago, I still can recall
his denial that the assault had occurred.
As
today’s events brought to light the reality of the possible death that
surrounds me, the constant reality of actual and perceived violence, and the understanding
that societal inequity continues to produce
brothers just like mine I become more
conscious of the burning need to change the world.
I
am also reminded of the connections between the bullet that lies somewhere in
my house (we never found it), the crimes of my brother, the crimes committed
against my brother (by educators, police, and even his father), the person my
brother robbed and raped (how does one ever recover from rape?), the women who
work down the block from my house to earn a living by selling their bodies, the
little boys and girls who live in the twenty story housing project two blocks
from my house; the two gay couples (one comprised of two young European
American men and the other comprised of late fiftyish Asian American man and
European American man who are parenting an African American teenager attending one
of the best private high schools in the country) who live across the street
from me because, ironically, the neighborhood is safer and more accepting of
them than other places they’ve lived; and the many more contradictions,
ironies, and maladies that comprise the world I live in.
My
world is replete with the ill effects of living with racism, sexism,
homophobia, classism, religious intolerance, sizism, ageism, ablism and the
list goes on and on. We live with this reality every day, yet do not claim it. We
do not possess this reality as our own, except when we display our hatred and
our violence with others, whether consciously or unconsciously, or are
victimized by the violence of others.
As
I struggle with the reality of the shooting experience, I am confronting the
importance of my role in changing the world. The idea of bringing people
together to dialogue about social justice, oppression and creating an equitable
society has been at the core of my existence since I was a child. However,
until the summer of 2008, when I discovered intergroup dialogues, I had yet to
truly find my path.
To
move society beyond the violence, societal change must occur that forges
alliances among people based on a shared sense of the place of all individuals
and groups in the construction and maintenance of the world. The despair that
besets my family and neighborhood is connected to the various ways that
oppression impacts each individual within society.
As
a strategy for building bridges across groups, based on race, gender, sexual
orientation, class, ability and religion, individuals and groups must begin to
create a common understanding through dialogue and community building. The
examples provided above are intended to provide a real world context for
discussing the merits of two divergent, yet complimentary approaches to
intergroup dialogue and action, the Michigan Model for Intergroup Dialogue
(IGD) and Transformational Social Therapy (TST).
The
Intergroup Dialogue Movement represents a major advancement in the
institutionalization of multicultural education in higher education. Since the
1960s, various groups have fought to create spaces within academia for the
inclusion of curricular and co-curricular educational programs that promote
multiculturalism and social justice. The movements for ethnic, women’s,
gay/lesbian/queer, disability, and class studies have had a significant impact
on the fabric, culture, and knowledge of American education from elementary
school to graduate and professional education. Concomitantly, the enormous
expansion of the diversity of groups extant in higher education has impacted
the co-curricular life of most universities, fostering a need to institute
numerous multicultural educational programs.
However,
the integration of multiculturalism throughout higher education has been met
with major obstacles from mainstream academics, politicians, and policy makers.
Fortunately, the enormous amount of work achieved since those earlier struggles
have provided invaluable opportunities for advocates of the multicultural
agenda to conceptualize and implement educational programs that are yielding
significant results and parallel the impetus of most institutions to include
multicultural education as a part of its mission and strategic planning.
The
Michigan Model of Intergroup Dialogue advances the idea that bringing divergent
groups together to dialogue about important issues of social identity enhances
the learning environment and prepares students to be better citizens (Zuniga). Gurin
argues that “students who interact with diverse students in classrooms and in
the broad campus environment will be more motivated and better able to
participate in a heterogeneous and complex society” (Gurin 19). Gurin argues
that higher education institutions must create curricular and co-curricular
learning opportunities for students to learn to “think in pluralistic and
complex ways, and to encourage them to become committed to life-long civic
action” (Gurin 33).
The
Intergroup Dialogue Movement represents an important step forward in the Multicultural
Education Movement by providing an innovative educational program that can be
viewed as foundational in the education of all students. As Zuniga state
“Intergroup dialogue shares common goals with other diversity education efforts
in higher education, yet it is distinctive in its critical-dialogic approach to
addressing issues of social identity and social location in the context of
systems of power and privilege. Unlike efforts that emphasize content knowledge
about group inequality or prejudice reduction through personalized encounters,
intergroup dialogue strives to balance intimate, interactive, and reflective encounters
among diverse participants with cognitive, affective, and active approaches to
learning about diversity and social justice” (Zuniga p. vii-viii). Other attempts to advance diversity, inclusion
and multicultural education often lack the systemic approach that the IGD model
offers.
The
Michigan Model, which serves the major example for this discussion defines
intergroup dialogue in the following manner:
Intergroup dialogue is a
face-to-face, interactive, and facilitated learning experience that brings
together twelve to eighteen students from two or more social identity groups
over a sustained period to explore commonalities and differences, examine the
nature and consequences of systems of power and privilege, and find ways to
work together to promote social justice. Some groups that participate in
intergroup dialogue include men and women; white people and people of color;
African Americans and Latinos or Latinas; heterosexuals, gay men, lesbians,
bisexual and transgender people; and Christians and Jews. Students engage in
active and experiential learning over the course of eight to twelve sessions.
The IGD groups are guided by trained facilitators who use an educational
curriculum. (Zuniga vii)
While
continuous efforts need to be made to effectively implement IGD programs throughout
academia, an examination of the profound impact that Transformational Social
Therapy (TST) can have to the larger movement for multicultural education must
be explored. Given the interdisciplinary nature of IGD, as well as the various
political movements that have fostered its existence, TST should be viewed as
an emergent theory and practice that can contribute to furthering democratic
values and intergroup relations.
One
of the important distinctions between IGD and TST is the quality of the TST
approach on several levels:
strategies for engaging participants, depth of engagement, purpose of the
dialogue, framing the dialogic-engagement process, dialogue content and
curriculum, goals of the dialogue/engagement, role and place of conflict, and
the role of the facilitator.
Charles
Rojzman argues that TST is quite distinct from traditional dialogue models.
TST is not about facilitating a
dialogue. The main goal of TST, which begins with group dialogues and leads to
transformative action, is to foster the practice and theory of healthy
multicultural and multi-ethnic democracies. This work aims to transform
institutions by helping people address the hatred and violence that separate
them and prevent them from working together. (notes page 2)
While
IGD has effective cognitive and affective goals and a coherent curriculum
design, TST’s psychoanalytic approach offers to forge a deeper, more psychical
approach to healing the wounds that separate groups. Though IGD shares many
similarities with TST in terms of ultimate goals, willingness to engage
participants to challenge societal issues related to identity and oppression,
the framework in which they operate differ greatly.
IGD
is outwardly about social justice education. Participants are asked to engage
in a process where the context is structured towards social justice learning
objectives. As Griffin and Ouellett state the role of facilitators is to “help
participants build resilience and internal resources that enable them to think
critically and tolerate ambiguity and complexity so that they can choose
behaviors and attitudes that are congruent with their commitments to social
justice” (Griffin 107).
While TST can be utilized for the same purpose, the
orientation is towards solving the problems and addressing the issues of each
individual participant to create collective action within the context of an
institutional framework. The issues of inequality and social justice are addressed,
but the centering of the process on the participants creates a unique
positional, almost ontological, perspective for participants.
The expectation that one will be “committed to
social justice” because they participate in an IGD course is questionable and problematic.
TST is the liberation of the individual, as both victimized and victimizer, to
encounter and uncover their role in society in the exploration of their
problems with those considered the enemy. As Rojzman explains “Only this
in-depth work allows people to talk about the ‘real problems’ and come out of
powerlessness and victimization, in order to finally create solutions out of
their ‘collective intelligence,’ solutions that, for example, will improve
schools, institutions, and the police” (Elkouri).
The focus on the real, lived experience of
participants provides a unique context for organizing for collective action.
TST’s more authentic approach in requiring participants to literally be
themselves, with all their hatred and violence, portends to reach beyond the bounds that IGD is based on. The
emphasis on creating a safe space, respectful dialogue, and searching for
commonalities, as one explores the societal conflicts, is central to the IGD model.
IGD is an advance in the implementation of multicultural
education in higher education, reflected in a conceptual movement away from the
teacher-as-expert model by focusing on “active engagement, cognitive,
affective, and kinesthetic” and “assumes that participants have valuable
knowledge and expertise from which both peers and teachers can learn” (Griffin 89).
While representing this advancement over traditional educational programs to
foster intergroup relations and understanding, the niceties of IGD are
consistent with past curricular and co-curricular programs in its ethos. TST’s
inclusion of individual participants in the construction of knowledge reflects
a more participatory and democratic approach to engaging participants in an
intergroup learning process.
Though
one of the more intensely engaging aspects of IGD is the section called hot topics, it pales in comparison to
TST’s more direct and honest approach to the creation of group identity and
bonding. In the phase of TST called the “harmonization
of motivations”, participants are required to “express the negative” in
order to bring out “information we need to know about real needs and suffering”
of participants in order to know what is required to motivate people to change”
(Keith, Notes, 2).
A
central distinction between the two approaches exists in TST basic assumption
that change only occurs then the individual changes themselves. Rojzman argues that “We can’t change
people, but people will change if they are motivated to do so” (Keith, Notes,
2). Rojzman says that TST is not about changing people or relations, but to
raise “awareness of the lack of trust, fears and prejudices, so that people
will become willing to change themselves in ways they themselves determine” (Keith,
Notes, 4).
The
goals of IGD include the development of a “consciousness about social identity
and social group differences” by examining individual and group identities,
behaviors and power relationships and “forge connections across differences and
conflicts by building caring and reciprocal relationships” where participants
can “learn to listen and speak openly, engage with one another seriously, take
risks, explore differences and conflicts, and discover common ground” as well
as build coalitions for social action. (Zuniga viii).
Admittedly,
IGD’s objectives are quite ambitious relative to the general discourse on
intergroup relations, though it significantly differs from TST because it does
not involve the intense focus, acceptance or belief that the dialogue process will
facilitate individuals changing themselves. Informing this argument is the level
of structure, established content and curriculum, and pedagogy that ensure that
very specific goals are met which are outlined at the beginning of the process.
The approach is founded on the idea that the institutions, facilitators, and
program architects know what is wrong with the participants, what will allow
participants to be successful in this endeavor and how the engagement should proceed.
While
IGD allows for a consistency in the approach and ensures that the “right”
information will be covered, the role of the individual to freely engage the
process in an authentic manner is minimized as compared to TST. Keith argues
that TST’s inclination for free expression allows TST to create “a special kind
of group” (Keith, Urban), ensuring that the group identity
provides a context for collective action. As Rojzman says TST is “not
work on
the people but with them” (Keith, Notes 24).
IGD
remains an innovative, vital approach to multicultural education in that it
fosters a sense of self-discovery in participants who are provided with a
unique opportunity to explore social identity by dialoguing about important
issues with people different form themselves. However, TST offers not only a method
of engaging but requiries participants to “enter into co-operation with each
ohter. But for that you have to agree to hear the other’s feelings of fear and
hatred" (Rojzman 3).
Additionally,
the mediating factors of the IGD curriculum, facilitator, and emphasis on “safe
space” provide a striking contrast to the natural, more realistic approach
offered by TST. Rojzman argues that the genuine, honest expression of
negativity, violence and hatred that exist between people must not only be
explored within the dialogue, they are crucial in order to move to the level of
group development and societal transformation. The otherness that exists in
society is the result of the otherness that exist on a daily basis for other
oppressors and oppressed. Being the oppressor is simply a sign of one’s own
wounds. He states:
This is why violence, unleashed
in some parts of the cities, and racism may offer our society an opportunity.
If our sickness is betraying its true nature in cooperation problems, violence,
suicidal or addictive behaviour, it is also in those parts of the city that the
sickness will intensify and the pressing calls for healing which result will be
heard. (Rojzman 197)
The
turmoil that oppression creates within social structures and relationships is
also symbolic of the need to heal. Rojzman states that “I am not just preaching
to the converted. For my approach does not start off simply from good
intentions but, on the contrary, from the consideration that racism and
violence are the keys to transformation” (Rojzman 203).
There have been various other forms of intergroup
dialogues that conform to the standards of the Michigan Model. Richard Chasin and
his colleagues discussed the Public Conversations Projects that promote
intergroup dialogue also makes the creation of a safe space and structured
dialogue fundamental to the success of the process. With the Public
Conversations Projects initial steps were “usually highly structured” and the
rules included making “no attempt to persuade, speaking for oneself and not as
a representative of a group, sharing air time by adhering to limits on speaking
time, and using respectful language” (Chasin 332). Contrary to TST, this method
requires participants to negate the reality that brought them into the dialogue
in the first place. They believe agreeing to certain ground rules can
“encourage the expression of even more intense feelings in a manner that is
authentic but not attacking” (Chasin 338).
Griffin and Ouellett argue that establishing clear
guidelines is essential to the IGD experience. They say that establishing “a
safe environment in which participants can discuss ideas, share feelings and
experiences, and challenge themselves and each other to reevaluate opinions and
beliefs is one of the primary facilitation responsibilities” (Griffin 95).
At the same time, Chasin’s model insists on using personal
stories to bring conflicts within the group by aiding participants in connecting
to one another “as unique and interesting human beings, not as spokespersons
for sides of an issue” (Griffin 335). Unfortunately,
when compared to the TST model, these
participant’s stories are seen as censured. While intense dialogues emerge and are
support by the IGD model, and create a “safe yet communal
space to express anger and indignation about injustices” (Dessel 303), the
notion of safety is overemphasized to the extent that it minimizes authentic
expressions.
In
IGD the structure of the dialogue is also informed by coherent sequencing
organizers that are common to many multicultural education programs utilizing
proper content to facilitate cognitive understanding and ensure affective
growth. The content-related sequencing include moving from the personal to
institutional for individuals, and diversity to justice sequencing for groups (Zuniga
24). On the affective level, the sequencing moves from lower to higher risk to
respond to “participants’ need for feel safe so they can openly engage and
examine deeply held beliefs, feelings and confusions” (Zuniga 24-25).
While
affect is a key component of the IGD model and occurs at all four stages, the
focus on safe space limits the most conflictual aspects of the process until
the third stage. In stages one and two, facilitators focus on “creating a safe
space for participants to share their thoughts and experiences. They begin to
lay the groundwork for future sessions by attending to group building as well
as introducing participants to the meaning of dialogue” (Zuniga 26).
Stage
three is focused on exploring and dialoguing about controversial topics that
bring attention to the major tensions between different identity groups (Zuniga
29). This stage has its foundation in the trust that has been developed in the
group and fostered by a sense of consciousness raising and relationship
building (Zuniga 30).
One
of TST’s contributions to the Intergroup Dialogue Movement could be to assist
practitioners in overcoming their own fears of authentic expression. The
overcompensation for safety, along with the various rules and procedures
governing it, limit the participants from fully engaging themselves, as
themselves, in the process of collective action.
Rojzman argues
that:
The main objective of TST is to
understand that these emotions are continuously at work in each person, in similar
and unique ways, and to help them find outlets for action. Working on fear,
violence and powerlessness and stopping the cycle resulting from these emotions
is a prerequisite for any project. If we do not confront this feeling or if you
imagine being able to create a miracle, nothing can be experienced at a
collective level without losses and damages. What we have just described is
present in all of us to varying degrees and prevents a healthy relationship
between oneself, others and the world. (Keith
Notes 1-2)
Rojzman views the engagement of the other by
exploring fears as the means to developing trust. He states that this work is
not “psychotherapy,
not to heal somebody” but an approach to “make connections between people, in order to build the group” (Keith
Notes 7). He believes that exploring the major problems, fears, and concerns
with other participants will enable them to go beyond their masks by making
connections on the commonalities of their wounds.
Rojzman argues that the authentic self must be
revealed by participants sharing their true identities, emotions, frailties,
flaws, and prejudices. By removing their masks, reflecting their true humanity,
then participants will be able to discuss issues related to racism, sexism,
homophobia, classism and etc (Keith
Notes 7).
For Rojzman “participants’ emotions and their shadow
side need to surface in order to remove common blocks to open dialogue. This
permits the circulation of information that is usually kept secret or is heard
only by trusted in-group members, and creates a ‘collective intelligence.’ The
TST process involves maximally diverse groups, whose knowledge, once tapped,
can produce a creative and productive synergy” (Keith Urban).
Rojzman argues that in TST there is a focus on fears
“because it helps to build trust in the TST group. It is especially important if you want to go
deep with the group and speak about real problems and not superficially, as is
common” (Keith Notes 9). However, IGD
sees itself as a movement that invites conflict and desires authentic dialogue,
its position contrasts greatly with that of TST. In Intergroup Dialogue in
Higher Education, Zuniga states:
Unlike feel-good types of
cross-group encounters that attempt to promote understanding by avoiding,
masking, or overcoming conflicts, intergroup dialogue recognizes that
communicating about and, if possible, working through conflict are both
positive and necessary parts of the intergroup encounter. Such disagreements
and conflicts can become valuable opportunities for participants to engage in
significant conversations about different perspectives and tensions shaping
relationships. (Zuniga
15).
While the above may be true theoretically, in IGD
the conflict expressed in the meetings are carefully constructed, encouraged
and presented through the expertise of the facilitator and the design of the
curriculum. As Zuniga explains
Creating a conducive climate for
learning across differences requires a group environment that supports building
relationships in the here and now. It also requires a process that challenges
and overcomes patterns of intergroup communication that reflect only, or
primarily the dominant group’s norms and styles. By using dialogic methods such
as speaking and listening activities and talking circles, participants
gradually develop the capacity to listen attentively to each other, talk openly
and honestly, appreciate different perspectives, and ask naïve or politically
incorrect questions. Through planned and sequentially structured activities
that provide participants with experiences that increase in difficulty,
intensity, and intimacy, relationships are built as the curriculum unfolds. (Zuniga 14).
Contrary to IGD, the formation of the group’s
collective identity in TST is the central task for engaging in deep dialogue
and constructive action. While the structured exercises of IGD have value in
engaging participants to discuss pre-programmed topics through structured
activities, TST argues that participants’ real lives are sufficient to foster
authentic engagement if allowed. As was the case with the shooting in my house,
and the many, varied, and omnipresent forms that oppression takes can be
revealed if participants are allowed to truly be themselves by sharing their
daily struggles.
TST’s focus on the authentic representation of the
self and the requirement that each participant’s needs be sought and included,
fosters a sense of ownership of the dialogue process. Unlike other approaches
to intergroup relations that focus on either improving “relationships between
groups through personalization, building acquaintances and friendships, and
engaging in cooperative projects” (Zuniga
7) or providing education programs that expose participants to the histories
and cultures of diverse groups, the IGD dialogic framework does have the
“potential to bring individuals and communities together, help them identify
social problems, and lead to social action” (Dessel 313).
Additionally,
a major theoretical distinction revolves around the nature of the inclusion of
conflict within the two models. As outlined previously, IGD is “designed to
involve individuals and groups in an exploration of societal issues such as
politics, racism, religion, and culture” while striving to “avoid unproductive
language, foster new listening skills, improve communication patterns, value
differences, and develop shared meanings” and “fostering an environment that
enables participants to speak and listen in the present while understanding the
contributions of the past and the unfolding of the future” (Dessel 303-304).
However,
as valuable of an approach as IGD is, it is almost antithetical to TST in terms
of the place and the expression of the self in the group. In IGD it is
important for the facilitator to maintain a certain amount of control over
participants in order to create the desired safe space. TST questions the very
value of safe space, positing that groups can’t build together unless they’ve gone
deep enough for serious change to occur. Rojzman explains that in
TST we never ask a participant
not to take too much space; he’s acting in the group as in life and needs to
become aware of what he does in life. He’ll do it, others will react, if there
is enough trust in the group. You have to make room for the violence, etc. This
gives the person the opportunity to change. Otherwise they’ll be “good” in the
group but will go back into their life and be the same. The goal is not to
create a good atmosphere. Yes, the facilitator does that at the beginning,
because confidence is needed. But afterwards, you show yourself as in life,
become aware, and change. (Keith Notes 17)
Rojzman
argues that the social change will not occur if we don’t allow individuals to
confront the violence, hatred and fears that constitute who they are as members
of an oppressive society. He believes that TST provides a framework for the
expression of the authentic self, which can be hateful, aggressive, angry and
violent, in order to “create positive
environments that help the best in ourselves come out, rather than hatred and
fear" (Elkouri).
Rojzman says that the “goal of this work is also to
help people become conscious of their own violence and also their own
responsibility” (Keith Notes 6) in order to co-construct new ways of engaging
people who are different from themselves. He argues that divisions must be
broken down and “to do that, you have to actually force people who do not want
to, to sit together, giving them a ‘space for conflict’ that will reduce their
fears” (Elkouri).
Rojzman defines violence as anger, aggressiveness
and most importantly as viewing the other as “as someone who is (a) totally
bad: (b) inferior (not a human being like me, but like an animal); (c)
responsible for doing things to me.
Violence is thinking that the other is not a human being like me and
cannot be a partner” (Keith Notes 11). Rojzman argues that this dichotomy must
be fought; that the other must not be seen as “enemies from beyond the pale who
have come to exterminate us” (Rojzman 207), but they must be
learned from. He argues that we resemble our enemies, share their fears,
cruelty, and sadism, and share the responsibility for what they are and what
they do (Rojzman 207-208).
For Rojzman, peace can only come about when groups
move from violence to conflict. For him, conflict is a natural, normal part of
life because of the diversity of experiences, thoughts, practices and ideas.
People are violent, when conflicts are not able to express themselves in a
peaceful manner. He argues that “in order to avoid violence, we should stop avoiding
conflict. In practical terms and in terms of practice, this means creating
encounters between people who no longer meet one another, who, as a result,
come to have paranoid fantasies about ‘others’” (Elkouri).
In intergroup dialogues “participants are asked to
suspend assumptions, confirm the unfamiliarity with each other” and are “encouraged
to collaborate willingly, be vulnerable, and believe in the authenticity of all
participant” (Dessel 304). For this to occur effectively, participants are asked
to ignore the reality of their lives and sublimate themselves to the dialogue
process. While IGD requires facilitators to assist participants in navigating
the various “hopes, fears, expectations, and needs” (Zuniga 55), they do so by
mediating the reality of the participants.
Chasin argues that in dialogue people “speak openly and listen
respectfully and attentively;” it excludes “attack and defense and avoids
derogatory attributions based on assumptions about” the other (Chasin 325). In
effect, this is dialogue without authenticity.
Keith
argues that empowerment from TST comes from the realization that connections
among participants can only come from experiencing the other through the
communication of fears.
Fears and lack of connectedness
with others contribute to a sense of powerlessness and victimization: we think
that others have to change in order for things to get better, feel powerless
because we think others will never change, are unwilling to see and admit to
our (partial) responsibility for the way things are, cannot communicate our
feelings and knowledge to “strangers,” and believe that change can only come
through superhuman, heroic action. Because our fears, deep emotional pain,
relationship to authority figures, and lack of trust in others inhibit fruitful
dialogue and joint action, TST works to reduce dependence on the facilitator
and create connections among participants. (Keith
Urban)
This
process will assist participants to “stop themselves from seeing the other as
[the devil], and acquire the capacity to see how their own behavior contributes
to the violence” (Keith Hebdo).
Therefore in order to avoid violence, participants must stop avoiding conflict
(Elkouri).
While IGD is based on individuals from different
identity groups participating in the dialogue, the model does not center the dialogue
on individual participant needs except as representatives of a group. The basis
of TST is the group. As a group-centered process, the core of TST revolves
around motivating participants around their true needs as individuals who share
their individual and group issues, problems and concerns (Keith Notes 9).
The group is a way to repair
these wounds: in the group, people are no longer humiliated, fearful,
etc.; group members become conscious of
own violence and can help others become conscious of it. The violence is what
prevents us from working and living together. This is what happens in the
society, institutions, in the group. TST tries to heal these wounds, so people
can see what they are doing, become responsible, not only a victim of other
people, you can change. We don’t ask people to change, but they change because
they heal their wounds. The pain we have inside us makes us violent toward other
people. The violence is usually very soft, but we can humiliate. (Keith Notes 12)
IGD is about providing individuals with a certain
awareness, knowledge and skill that will enable them to be better advocates for
social justice and contribute to collaborative action with others. While the
curriculum, activities and exercises create a dialogic experience that assists
in the development of participants, the model does not consciously ensure that
the individual needs, barriers and challenges are integrated into the process.
Zuniga states that
By engaging deeply with people
different from themselves and by recognizing how their own identities and social locations affect
themselves and others, participants learn to care about how people from both
privileged and disadvantaged groups are affected by social injustice, to feel
responsible for social injustice, to feel confident in their skills and
abilities to develop and sustain relationships even when conflicts exist, and
to feel hopeful about the possibilities of working together across differences
toward a shared vision of social justice. (Zuniga
17)
Rojzman
argues that building genuine cooperation among participants occurs after
exploring the others’ fears, wounds, and pains. This process creates a sense of
community and people will be able to “build a group with diverse people
where it’s possible to speak
about difficult issues, conflicts without violence, find solutions, with a
minimum of trust that enables us to go deeper, and with “collective intelligence”. It’s important, for instance, that people
feel they can speak about their own racism and violence. Otherwise it’s
superficial. (Keith Notes 14)
Rojzman argues that basing
collective action on the genuine issues of groups in conflict through a process
of authentic engagement of participants produces a collective intelligence.
This collective intelligence, with participants as experts in their lives,
struggles and communities, where they link personal, historical, and
institutional sources of violence, creates the framework for the collective
intelligence of all parties to solve their problems (Keith Urban).
IGD
is distinct from other multicultural education programs that focus on
advantaged groups learning about the history and struggles of the oppressed. It
focuses on “raising the consciousness of all participants, not only those who
are members of the less-advantaged groups. For a genuine dialogue to occur, it
is just as important for members of privileged groups to understand how they and
other have been affected by privilege as for members of less-advantaged groups
to understand how they have been affected by subordination” (Zuniga 9).
In
TST while the primary goal is not only for people to understand issues but it
is centered on truly learning to work with someone who has been or is an enemy.
TST provides a healing of wounds by allowing for the emergence of new ways of
working with real people with historical conflicts. Rojzman says that the “goal
is not to heal all the wounds of people; it’s to help them do something
together, to speak freely about an issue, to try to live together” (Keith Notes
12).
Both
TST and IGD recognize that significant growth can only occur when the contact
is consistent, enduring and deep. The IGD model “relies on extended meetings
among participants to develop deeper intergroup understanding (even if it is
about how there is conflict between the groups), mutual respect, and empathic
connection between participants” (Zuniga 13-14).
While
TST group work changes participants, it “is not oriented to group therapy but
to civic engagement and community change” (Keith Urban). However, the change occurs because of the
trust and bonds that have been developed within the group (Keith Notes 10). Rojzman notes that the main purpose of TST is
to heal the bonds or connections
between people. Thus it is a
“psychotherapy of the social bonds” which aims to repair the difficulties
people experience in living and working together. It brings self-awareness
about one’s own blocks to cooperation and heals what creates obstacles to
people being able to work and live with others who are different from them
(different identities) ((Keith Notes 1).
As
we entered the second decade of the 21st century with enormous
opportunities to forge new alliances to solve the world’s problems, the history
of the previous century still haunts us. The Philadelphia Inquirer of Sunday, December 13, 2009, included a
story, “Schools chief to address South Philadelphia High tensions,” which
outlines the conflicts between African Americans and Asian immigrants in South
Philadelphia High School. As the author denotes the tensions are racially
motivated. The story even recounted how the school officials and city human
relations agencies have been working on a process to engage students in
dialogue to improve intergroup relations.
One
of the many unfortunate aspects of this story is that administrators, community
leaders and politicians have not normalized intergroup educational programs as
part of education, civic and community activities. The various forms of
violence that have invaded my home, family and community are ever-present for
all of us.
The
Intergroup Dialogue Movement proposes solutions that directly challenge
oppression, mediate conflicts between disparate groups, forge alliances for
common understand and social change and contribute to the actualization of
democracy. As the IGD Movement will continue to expand with various strands evolving,
continuous assessments and evaluations of the models must be made. It is
obvious that major distinctions between the Michigan Model of Intergroup
Dialogue and Transformation Social Therapy exist. There are numerous
differences related to structure, content, leadership, and participant roles
that impact theory, process and outcomes.
However,
as Rojzman would argue, institutional context creates the possibilities that
emerge. The formality of IGD is consistent with the practices, methodologies,
pedagogy and temperament of higher education. Aspects of TST may emerge at
institutions with a more progressive mission and administration. As practical
approaches to enhancing multicultural education in higher education, both
methods should be viewed as advances yet to take hold in any significant way,
though sorely needed.
CITATIONS
Chasin, Richard,
Margaret Herzig, Sallyann Roth, Laura Chasin, Carol Becker, and Robert Stains,
Jr., “From Diatribe to Dialogue on Divisive Public Issues: Approaches Drawn
from Family Therapy," Mediation Quarterly 13:4 (Summer 1996)
pp. 323-344.
Dessel, Adrienne, Mary
Rogge, and Sarah Garlington. “Using Intergroup Dialogue to Promote Social
Justice and Change,” Social
Work; Oct 2006; 51, 4; Research Library.
Elkouri, Rima. “North Montreal on a psychiatrist’s
couch” (Montréal-Nord sur un divan de psy). La Presse (Montreal), November 25,
2008. (Translated by Novella Keith). http://www.cyberpresse.ca/opinions/chroniqueurs/rima-elkouri/200811/25/01-804025-montrealnord-sur-un-divan-de-psy.php
Griffin, Pat and Mathew
Ouellett. “Facilitating
Social Justice Education Courses,” in Teaching for Diversity
and Social Justice. Editors : Maurianne Adams, Lee Anne Bell, and Pat
Griffin. Routledge. 2007. pp.89-113.
Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., Lopez, G. (2004). “The benefits of diversity in
education for democratic citizenship,” Journal
of Social Issues, 60(1), 17-34.
Keith,
Novella. "Hebdo France 2". Partial translation of an article that
appeared in the weekly, No. 5, January 25- 31, 2003.
Keith,
Novella. “Urban-Suburban Mirror: Youth, Violence and Community Building.”
Keith,
Novella. Notes from Certificate in Diversity Facilitation Course 1. 2009.
Rojzman,
C. How to Live Together.
St.Kilda, AU: Acland, 1999.
Zuniga,
Ximena, Biren (Ratnesh) A. Nagda, Mark Chesler, Adena Cytron-Walker. Intergroup
Dialogue In Higher Education: Meaningful Learning About Social Justice.
ASHE Higher Education Report : Volume 32, Number 4. Kelly Ward, Lisa
Wolf-Wendel, Series Editors, 2007.
