Definition of Terms

One of the immediate problems faced by anyone who attempts to discuss issues of diversity is the variability and emotional and political nature of the terms used in both formal and casual discussions of diversity. Indeed, language and terminology have a major impact on the nature and quality of the discourse. The use of the term “diversity” is, in itself, somewhat awkward in that it is so general it may lose some of its relevance. There is also a tendency to use the phrase “diverse groups” as a subtle way of referring to any group that is different from the dominant group. The diversity categories listed in the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and the Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association, 2010) are age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status. Rather than attempt to address each of these areas separately, we have loosely grouped them under the heading of culture and will refer to cultural differences as inclusive of all of these.

In this context, culture refers to a set of behavioral and social norms passed across generations that are characteristic of a particular group. Although one might argue that any one of the groups previously mentioned does not represent a culture per se, it is difficult to argue that these and most other societal groups do not have certain expectations for the behavioral, social, and even emotional actions of their members. The elderly are expected to behave in certain ways, and in fact these expectations are passed across generations and are often adhered to within groups of elderly persons. Similarly, gays and lesbians are expected by others to behave in certain ways and have rather defined expectations for behavior within their community. Each of these groups even tends to develop specialized language with which members communicate among themselves. In addition to focusing on behavioral aspects of any given group, the term “culture” also carries with it a positive connotation and a sense of inherent value. For these reasons, it is a term particularly well suited to this discussion.

In addition to the overall definition of culture, three other variables must be considered when discussing any group or specific client: objective culture, subjective culture, and oppression. Objective culture is the cultural group to which one is assigned by others. This assignment may be made for many reasons, valid or not, and appearance is often the most dominant of these. “Funny, you don’t look …” is a phrase that reflects objective culture, as it can negatively affect a person regularly assigned to a group with which he or she does not identify. These people continually find themselves in the position of having to undo the assumptions that others make about them. The counterpart to objective culture is subjective culture. This refers to the client’s self-identification regardless of external signs or factors. Objective and subjective culture may often differ, and when they do, the difference may produce a special stress for those experiencing it. This conflict is often quite salient in the lives of people who belong to so called “invisible” groups, such as those who have been oppressed for reasons of religion or sexual orientation. Persons in these groups are often aware of the benefits they enjoy by being able to blend in when necessary. At the same time, however, blending into the dominant culture is often experienced by the individual as a betrayal of both the self and the group. A powerful example of this was seen in some Holocaust survivors, especially those who escaped by “passing” for Aryan Germans. One woman survived the concentration camp solely because, being blonde, she caught the attention of the commandant at the concentration camp, who discovered that besides appearing Aryan she also had musical talent. He kept her alive to entertain him “even though she was Jewish.” On the one hand, she survived; on the other hand, it caused her to spend the rest of her life finding ways to assert and value her Jewishness.

Yet another example of the clinical implications of objective and subjective culture can be seen in the experience of a family we recently treated in which the primary caregiver (not a biological caregiver) was African-American. All but one of the children were of mixed African-American and Anglo-American parentage. One child was of mixed Anglo-American and Asian-American parentage, and was a half-sibling to the other children. Not only did the primary caregiver refuse to acknowledge that the one child was not a full sibling; she also refused to recognize that the child was of a different racial mix. At the time of referral the child believed herself to be African-American and was distressed because she was being teased by both Anglo-American and African-American peers at school. She believed she was being teased because she was African-American, and therefore did not know why she was being teased by the African-American children. The reality was that she was being teased because she appeared to be Asian. In her peer setting, Southeast Asians tended to have lower social status than African-Americans. Needless to say, the child in this situation was unable to develop a stable sense of identity, unable to access a viable social support system, and was, consequently, unable to cope with the reactions of her peers.

When considering issues related to culture, one must also consider the degree to which the client’s cultural group has been or is oppressed. The degree to which culture becomes a salient factor in play therapy is often directly proportional to the level of oppression that a group experiences. In the United States in the 21st century, being tenth-generation English-American may have very little meaning in the client’s day-to-day life. On the other hand, being a recent Southeast-Asian immigrant, or being gay/lesbian or bisexual, is likely to be experienced as an every-day stressor by most clients.

Related to the issue of oppression, it is interesting to note that the groups usually included in a discussion of diversity exclude those who make up the dominant culture – namely, young, white, heterosexual males. There are pros and cons to limiting a discussion of diversity in this way.

One advantage to limiting a discussion of diversity to those groups typically neglected or oppressed by the dominant culture is that it tends to focus the discussion on the issue of oppression. This prevents us from minimizing the reality that for some groups the world is experienced as a hostile and dangerous place. Like it or not, girls grow up in a world that places them at greater risk for victimization than boys. Similarly, African-American children grow up knowing the potential for experiencing verbal and even physical aggression is ever present. Gay adolescents kill themselves at an astonishingly high rate to avoid the devastating social sanctions they see imposed on others like themselves. This is such a pervasive reality that caregivers in some groups, such as African-Americans, Jews, and gays and lesbians, actively prepare their children for possible oppression as a coping strategy. However, focusing on the reality of oppression also tends to diminish a group both in the eyes of its own members and in society’s eyes. The group comes to exist only as victims of the dominant...