Engage Her: Activating Women and MultiCultural Communities

“But, many of my friends are of diverse backgrounds!”

Or, “I am married to an African American or a Latino!”

           No matter what cultural background or spiritual path we come from, it is a well-known reality that relating openly and effectively to people who are different from us is not a guarantee, no matter how much we try, or we think we try.  We all relate to the world and to others from our own personal values and cultural, gender and many other types of lenses.  And, yes, this is also true of Caucasians or Anglos, or whichever term they may prefer to self-describe.

            It makes plenty of sense, doesn’t it?  What is appropriate to say or not, or what tone of voice to use, or what may be a good or a poor timing for expressing or doing anything is always framed by our world views.  If, hypothetically, we were all aware of how our views mold our perceptions and judgments, we may be able to understand or, at least, be curious about when ours collide with the perceptions of others different from us.  However, the reality is that most people rarely review their worldviews as valid, yet partial, and assume theirs is somehow the ‘right’ one.   In fact, in all societies it happens mostly to those groups who happen to be the mainstream, the majority or those in most position of rank or power.  Therefore, in the United States, it is not surprising that we often hear Caucasian individuals state that their perceptions are ‘objective’ or ‘neutral’—as if that was even possible, or even desirable!

            What Caucasians or other individuals who happen to hold privileged positions within our society (regardless of culture or race, at times) do not seem to be aware of is how those who are placed on the margins constantly adapt to their ways of talking, being or expressing themselves.  That is, unless they have some kind of rank, people of color, women, immigrants, the economically poor or somehow disenfranchised need to learn to code switch into “Caucasian mainstream ways of talking, being and going about life” while in the presence of Anglos.  Unless Caucasians are exposed to environments in which the vast majority are people of color or any subdominant group, and they do not hold any rank over them, there is no way for them to notice the difference.  And even in those circumstances, it is a matter of their level of sensitivity—which varies among peoples of all colors!

            What is particularly tough for those of us who come from such sub-dominant groups (and clearly not by choice) is to learn how to code switch.  Nobody is explicit or clear about it, it is mostly subtle, and there are many contradictory messages in the ambiance.  The later is extremely common in groups that consider themselves liberal and “have many friends or a husband or wife who is a person of color.”  Unfortunately, in those groups there is frequently a façade of openness about multicultural power dynamics, but when anyone intends to address issues, Anglos tend to become uptight, nervously silent, or out right verbally aggressive indicating that “they are children of the sixties”, or some other interesting excuse that interferes with any genuine and non-blaming dialogue.  Of course, a critical ingredient in these possible dialogues is a non-blame and shame approach.  Remember that any group, not just Caucasians, may simply be unaware of how they negatively affect others in the way they go about life.  Due to their position in Unitedstatesian society, Anglos are more prone to be oblivious to it—and they will continue to be oblivious as much as the conversations remain superficial or don’t occur at all.

            At last April’s Engage Her conference at UC Berkeley, there was at least one delightfully powerful breakthrough.  Gloria Steinem admitted that the women’s movement was racist.  It takes someone of her statue and rank to have such courage, and we are lucky that she used her leadership to set that truism on the table of discussion.  I am utterly excited to be a member of Engage Her, as meaningful and transformational conversations about multicultural matters, especially those that affect women and their rank in society are emerging everywhere!  And, yes, we are including women of ALL colors, including Anglos!

Food for thought:  Regardless of your cultural heritage, reflect on how you may change your behavior, especially the way you talk (tone of voice, topics to cover, timing, pauses, etc.) when you interact with people who are somehow different from you.  If you are Anglo, ask your friends of color if they “talk in a different language” (known as “code switching”) when they talk or behave with you.  If you approach the conversation within a curious and non-blaming attitude, I bet you you’ll learn about many things you were unaware of!

I have recently returned from a business trip to Memphis, Tennessee.  Fortunately, the client (The Kellogg Foundation) squeezed a visit to the National Civil Rights Museum into our extremely busy schedule.   The legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders was a compelling reminder of the critical importance of non-violent principles in multicultural dialogues.  That is,  since we too must proceed with utmost clarity of values and the courage and conviction that deeper understanding across cultures is not only possible, but utterly needed.

            In my prior blog I made reference to distinguishing what we know from what we interpret others doing or saying.  The common confusion between facts and perceptions causes people to be at odds even prior to really knowing what they are reacting to.  I call this dynamic “jumping into confusions.”  However, once we have taken the time to truly understand (and hopefully with some level of depth) what others are stating or doing, there is nothing wrong with respectfully disagreeing or even changing our minds!   As Mohandas Gandhi would state:  “ I’d rather be truthful than consistent!”

            Engaging in dialogues about differences that matter in non-violent fashions certainly requires an open mind and heart, but does not mean that everything counts or that we must always respect other people’s values.  For instance, the Ku Klux Klan has deeply ingrained racist values that are contrary to any genuine spiritual or humanitarian path and should not be tolerated.  In fact, the act of tolerating any similarly inclined school of thought and practices is an act of violence in itself.  The challenge is how to confront those without becoming violent ourselves.  This is were clarity of values and courage come in, but they must be coupled with some practical principles.

            One principle that has been instrumental in my facilitation practice is the one of passive-resistance.  This means that I do not collaborate with, not even react to, any act of disrespect or violence.  There are different ways through which I strategically do not get tangled into that distructive energy.  For instance, when someone insults me or someone else, I intentionally do not respond.  Sometimes, I literally ignore them, at others, I take a different angle (a positive or clarifying one) on the same issue.  Consistently, I become curious rather than reactive.  Mind you that this is a very active role, not a passive one at all!  In fact, practicing passive-resistance takes much more energy and courage than being reactive or violent.

            Food for Thought:  Think back on some instance in which someone directly disrespected you or others.  Holding on to the understandable tendency to “hit back” in some fashion, and not judging it, reflect on the various creative ways through which you could channel your energy in non-violent fashions.  Being angry is valid and functional; just what we allow ourselves to do with our anger makes us more or less humans—more like Dr. Martin Luther King, or more like the Ku Klux Klan.

In my role as a group facilitator and mediator who pays close attention to diversity matters, I have often found that people disagree with or become offended by something that has not been either said or meant.  That is, even before they know what the other person is saying or intending to say, they interpret it in some fashion and have a negative reaction to it.

Of course, just like in the case of religion, politics or other topics that are rooted in deep values, talking about diversity matters frequently winds up being a very sensitive endeavor.  Engrained in past experiences of exclusion or sometimes outright racism or sexism, it makes plenty of sense that people recurrently become very emotional.  However, in and of itself, that is not the problem.  What complicates dialogues about diversity matters is a common tendency of loading our own negative interpretations to what others are saying, meaning or even doing—and not knowing the difference!

For instance, someone describing a scene about interacting with people of a different gender, culture or any other diversity aspect.  While they are describing what their experience was, and before they made any value judgment about it, they are often blamed for being “racist”, “sexist” or otherwise intolerant.   Of course, the result is a shut down in communication and any real interaction across cultures, of any type, is missed.  Everyone is to lose in such scenarios.  

In a recent trip to South America, I heard Chileans describing North Americans as being “less emotionally expressive than South Americans”.  That, in and of itself is a fair enough description of differences.  A judgment, however, would have been if “being less emotionally expressive” was somehow interpreted as “not caring or caring less about what was happening” at this fairly emotionally charged event.  The first one was a description, the second would have been an interpretation.

Food for thought:  A trick that I have found helpful to me and my clients is the old virtue of curiosity and its ancient wisdom.  It goes like this:  “when confronted with something that triggers a reaction in you, hold on to your interpretation (as it is rich in information about you) and become genuinely curious!”  Just like for me and for my clients, it is my hope that by finding out more about what the other person is saying that you will not only gain insight as to what their perspective is, but that you may further learn about your own point of view.  Remember to distinguish what is being described from what you are making of it.  Both are valid, just refrain from mixing them up.  And, yes, becoming offended is often a personal choice.

Multicultural Dialoguing in the Post “Political-Correctness” Era

By Gabriela Melano, Ed.D.

When I first arrived to the USA in the late 80’s, the Political Correctness Era was in full fledge.   A fascinating advance towards improved integration of people’s of all type, those were times when people paid close attention to the use of language.  For instance, in an interest to promote higher awareness around gender matters, gender inclusive language was proposed and has gradually become more common in every day communication.  Examples of gender inclusive language are the use of “his or her” as opposed to the use a male only or “firefighter” when referring to firemen and firewomen… and the list goes on and on.

I found this focus on language use to be particularly interesting as it gave a focal avenue for entering the often-delicate conversations that increased multicultural understanding entail.  As a result of those dialogues, whether they were carried in the quasi-safety of a classroom setting or the more volatile environment of diversity workshops, it was thrilling to be a witness of enhanced awareness of how language can include or exclude, respect or disrespect people from diverse life paths.

This stage in the field was certainly worthwhile and necessary—and is still relevant, as there are still long ways to go and territories to explore in the development of inclusive language.  However, what I believe we appear to be more ready to embark in our new era is to get deeper and, if we are successful, start building bridges among differences.

Let me share one concrete example of a principle I have found useful when facilitating multicultural dialogue.  I call it the “intent as well as impact principle”.   When talking about differences of any type, it is quite possible (and almost expected) that we may inadvertently offend someone.   Without a need for a guilt-driven feeling, it is often helpful to acknowledge that we did, in fact, say something offensive as it helps to restore some level of trust and comfort in the conversation.  A very similar spirit is also required for those who may be at the receiving end of the offense.  That is, when letting someone know that they stated something offensive to us, we need to keep in mind and heart that, most likely, they have not realized they were disrespectful to us.  Sharing our feelings, thoughts and perspective without guilt or a self-righteous attitude will prove to be critical ingredients to deepen and further those conversations that are so critical for improved multicultural understandings.

An esteemed colleague in the field of race relations, Glenn Singleton, states the following in his workshops on racial matters in education.  “It is hard for an African American man to walk around in society having to constantly prove that he is not a thief nor a murderer. In conversations with Caucasians I have learned to realized that it must be tough for a White person, of any gender, to go about the world having to prove that they are not racist.”

Food for thought: Remember any conversation you had around diversity matters that did not quite end in improved understandings.  Re-track the steps in the dialogue.  Would being aware about the importance of intent and impact have helped?  If so, how differently may have the