Speaker 1: Can we be patient long enough to listen to perspectives
Speaker 1: which may not be ours and understand the value and
Speaker 1: validity in those perspectives. Hello, and welcome to the Psychology Podcast.
Speaker 1: Today we welcome my dear friend Christine Robinson on the show.
Speaker 1: Christine is an executive coach, consultant, facilitator, and strategist whose
Speaker 1: expertise lies in building pathways to policy and systems change.
Speaker 1: She has worked as a consultant to the White House,
Speaker 1: the Ford Foundation, Harvard Medical School, the Women of Foundation,
Speaker 1: other notable organizations. Christine studied at Vassar College, Randeis University,
Speaker 1: and the University of Pennsylvania and has trained as a
Speaker 1: developmental and community psychologist. In fact, that's the topic of
Speaker 1: our chat today, community psychology. It's an exciting new field
Speaker 1: and Christine has really impacted the field innovative ways. In
Speaker 1: order to nurture a culture of well being, Christine says
Speaker 1: it's crucial to acknowledge the multifaceted identities of individuals instead
Speaker 1: of seeing marginalized groups as others. She encourages us to
Speaker 1: view diversity as a valuable asset to society. She argues,
Speaker 1: we need to listen to everyone's perspective before we can
Speaker 1: bring social change and co create an inclusive and equitable community.
Speaker 1: This is a really fun chat with a dear friend,
Speaker 1: and I'm excited to bring it to you today. So
Speaker 1: without further ado, I give you my discussion with Christine Robinson. Christine,
Speaker 1: I'm so excited to chat with you today on the podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm thrilled to be here. Thank you so very much
Speaker 1: for the invitation. Yeah. Well, I've been a great admirer
Speaker 1: of your work for many years now, and I'm excited
Speaker 1: to get it hind a spotlight on it on the podcast.
Speaker 1: I thought we would start off with a quote from
Speaker 1: Margaret Wheatley that says, all social change begins with a conversation.
Speaker 1: Why do you like that quote so much? Because I
Speaker 1: feel as though if we can't talk about things, we're
Speaker 1: not going to make any headway. And I think this
Speaker 1: is true. First of all, it's kind of a foundational
Speaker 1: precept in looking at not only psychology, but every single
Speaker 1: discipline in our personal lives, our professional lives, and the
Speaker 1: societal life and societal discourse. I think that we all
Speaker 1: find that if we struggle through conversations, if we don't
Speaker 1: share common meanings and understandings of words and concepts that
Speaker 1: we're really at a disadvantage, and I think that just
Speaker 1: the capacity to talk sometimes talking puts us at loggerheads,
Speaker 1: which is really interesting, particularly if we do not have
Speaker 1: this share the same meaning or understanding around terminology. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I completely agree. Well, we haven't really covered the topic
Speaker 1: of community psychology that much in this podcast, so I
Speaker 1: was really excited to be able to feature that and
Speaker 1: then of course feature your enhancements to the definition of
Speaker 1: it that exists in the field. But could we start
Speaker 1: off with sort of the traditional definition of community psychology,
Speaker 1: how it tends to be thought of, some of the
Speaker 1: maybe a little bit of the origin story of the field,
Speaker 1: who are some of the key players in the beginning
Speaker 1: of it, and then we'll kind of we'll start talking
Speaker 1: about some of your redefinitions. Sure, I think it's important
Speaker 1: to say that community psychology is an applied discipline first
Speaker 1: of all, so it really tries to take a lot
Speaker 1: of psychological precepts and put them into practice where they're
Speaker 1: actually lived and part of the fabric of our lives,
Speaker 1: as opposed to being an academic exercise, even though that
Speaker 1: clearly is an academic discipline in addition, community psychology goes
Speaker 1: beyond individual cultural It goes beyond an individual frame to
Speaker 1: really look at a lot of the cultural, political, economic,
Speaker 1: and environmental frames. And so the multidisciplinary piece, I think
Speaker 1: is really important because it draws very heavily on a
Speaker 1: number of other disciplines, being sociology and anthropology and public
Speaker 1: health and a number of other perspectives. It also tries
Speaker 1: to expand a lot of concepts, so beyond the psychological
Speaker 1: precept of helping, it really looks at this whole question
Speaker 1: around wellness and what is wellness and what is well being?
Speaker 1: And so the paradigm shift is in some of the
Speaker 1: nuances there. The field is very much focused on action
Speaker 1: oriented research, and so a lot of it is field
Speaker 1: research looking at practitioners in the field, making certain that
Speaker 1: theory is related to practice and that it is something
Speaker 1: that is actually accessible by people in community. A very
Speaker 1: high value on lived experience and so not only those
Speaker 1: who have a lot of expertise from an academic perspective,
Speaker 1: but the voices of people who are directly affected. Built
Speaker 1: on a foundation of collaboration relationships, so looking not only
Speaker 1: at interpersonal relationships about how organizations and systems are aligned
Speaker 1: as well, and there's a strong interest in looking at government,
Speaker 1: civic life, civic health, civic discourse. And finally there's a
Speaker 1: commitment to really address inequities and social inequities and impression.
Speaker 1: And so the framework is much more expansive than traditional
Speaker 1: psychology that may be much more focused on the individual.
Speaker 1: And in addition, it is a field that finds no
Speaker 1: challenge in taking research to practice and also invites an
Speaker 1: authentic dialogue where people can come in as equal partners
Speaker 1: as to how we address community issues. Very strongly influenced
Speaker 1: by the work of a doctor Uri Bramfordbrenner. A full disclosure,
Speaker 1: I should just state that I had the wonderful opportunity
Speaker 1: to be one of his students when I did graduate
Speaker 1: work at Cornell. So the socio ecological framework is a
Speaker 1: foundational piece of this work and the ability the reciprocity
Speaker 1: if you start with how an individual is nested within
Speaker 1: a family, nested within a neighborhood, a community, a church,
Speaker 1: a school, a workplace, within a region, a municipality for example,
Speaker 1: a state, and the nation, and so if you go
Speaker 1: in and out, there's a reciprocal effect of actually how
Speaker 1: that nation state has implications for us all as individuals,
Speaker 1: and we're seeing that pronounced now, for example, in COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen So the field actually developed in the nineteen sixties,
Speaker 1: and I hope that that's helpful, Scott, incredibly helpful. I
Speaker 1: was such a fan of Brothen Benner's work in grad school.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm still a fan, but when I first
Speaker 1: discovered it, I became an instant fan, and personally, I
Speaker 1: was trying to see how it could be applied understanding
Speaker 1: of intelligence and how we kind of measure intelligence and
Speaker 1: treat it sometimes as though it purely comes from within
Speaker 1: and isn't influenced by the socio cultural environment. And I
Speaker 1: really loved, really the nuance and the rich sort of
Speaker 1: tapestry of the theory and how it combines lots of
Speaker 1: different factors, doesn't ignore ability, but it also includes the community.
Speaker 1: So I'm a big fan. And I think that's amazing
Speaker 1: that you met him, that you worked with him, he
Speaker 1: was your mentor can you kind of tell us a
Speaker 1: little bit more of what he was like as a person.
Speaker 1: I've never met. I never met him, so I'm just curious.
Speaker 1: A brilliant, salt of the earth kind of person. No pretension,
Speaker 1: very very open, and incredibly expansive in his thinking. So
Speaker 1: he was one of my professors when I did graduate
Speaker 1: work in Cornell at the College of Human Ecology and
Speaker 1: Human Development and Family Studies. I was fortunate enough to
Speaker 1: be one of his students as he was in the
Speaker 1: process of refining his work on human ecology and putting
Speaker 1: together this theory which was incredibly expansive. But what was
Speaker 1: fascinating in that opportunity at the time was the deep
Speaker 1: conversations that he had with graduate students at that time
Speaker 1: about his thinking, which, quite frankly, for many of us,
Speaker 1: and I'll be honest to myself very much and I'll
Speaker 1: speak for myself here, was very hard to grasp because
Speaker 1: it was so multifaceted on so many different layers and
Speaker 1: so many different levels, very complex and extraordinarily intricate. And
Speaker 1: I don't think to this day that we've really fully
Speaker 1: appreciated the magnitude an incredibly generous man, very very gracious,
Speaker 1: always had time and always had room, just an extraordinary person.
Speaker 1: And I'm deeply grateful for having had that opportunity. Well,
Speaker 1: it sounds like such a good person, and I love
Speaker 1: when a good person is also a good researcher. When
Speaker 1: those two things match up, that's wonderful. And Stephen CC
Speaker 1: was in that department as well, right, was he there
Speaker 1: at the time. He was? He was, He was there
Speaker 1: at the time. And what I should also mention about
Speaker 1: bronfrem Brenner is I don't think that he ever overcame
Speaker 1: his own background. As you probably know, he was from Russia,
Speaker 1: a Russian family originally, and so this whole issue around
Speaker 1: context and the environmental context and how the culture has
Speaker 1: implications for our lives. Coming from Russia to the US
Speaker 1: and being raised in a family with traditions in a
Speaker 1: Russian kind of context, being then coming to the US
Speaker 1: and a US context. I think that that is an
Speaker 1: example of how lived experience can be really powerful in
Speaker 1: the lives of researchers and actually bringing also it parallels
Speaker 1: with bringing the voices of those directly affected, because part
Speaker 1: of that voice was his his own experience and understanding
Speaker 1: and his own family's history. So here you're getting into
Speaker 1: issues around historical psychology and biographical psychology and a whole
Speaker 1: host of paradigms that one could use and look at
Speaker 1: more intentionally. And he personified and actually encouraged his students
Speaker 1: to do so absolutely, and I thought, maybe you could
Speaker 1: even unpack his theory a little more, in the sense
Speaker 1: that he emphasized that all areas of the puzzle of
Speaker 1: a healthy ecosystem are inextricably linked to each other. Could
Speaker 1: you maybe unpack that a little more? In the world?
Speaker 1: Does that mean what I just said? Well, I see
Speaker 1: brown from Brenner in the extraordinarily powerful words of Reverend
Speaker 1: doctor Martin Luther King. And because we are doing this podcast,
Speaker 1: we're recording it on even though it won't be released today.
Speaker 1: I just want to read a quote that I pulled
Speaker 1: up this morning in preparation, and it's from his letter
Speaker 1: from a Birmingham jail. In a real sense, all life
Speaker 1: is interrelated. All men are caught in an inescapable network
Speaker 1: of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever
Speaker 1: affects one directly affects all indirectly. I can never be
Speaker 1: what I ought to be until you are what you
Speaker 1: ought to be, and you can never be what you
Speaker 1: ought to be until I am what I ought to be.
Speaker 1: This is the interrelated struggle of reality. And I think
Speaker 1: that that quote kind of laid on top of the
Speaker 1: socioecological framework that Brown from Brinter developed are It's another
Speaker 1: way of saying exactly the same way, the same thing
Speaker 1: in slightly different language. But the interrelationship and the interdependencies
Speaker 1: which I think we sometimes miss. Unfortunately, so many scholars
Speaker 1: and academic fields are very wedded to a certain type
Speaker 1: of approach and a paradigm. And I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: they're not a value, but I think that we silo
Speaker 1: at our peril and a lot of times if we
Speaker 1: are so narrow in the frame, we cannot recognize the interdependencies.
Speaker 1: And both the quote from doctor Martin Luther King and
Speaker 1: the socioecological framework talk about our interdependencies, and sometimes I
Speaker 1: do believe that in the US and our culture and
Speaker 1: psychology is a field sometimes looks at this notion of
Speaker 1: as an independent individual, how you ought to be and
Speaker 1: how you can move forward. Another MLK quote is it's
Speaker 1: a cruel joke to ask somebody who has no boots
Speaker 1: to pull them up by their bootstraps, and I would
Speaker 1: add to that, it's a cruel even crueler to ask
Speaker 1: someone who has no feet to pull themselves up by
Speaker 1: their bootstraps. So we have traditionally marginalized, for example, people
Speaker 1: who are disable, and so looking at some of the
Speaker 1: terms that we use and the assumptions that we make,
Speaker 1: and a lack of reality of various life experiences opportunities,
Speaker 1: and how groups have been marginalized. And so I think
Speaker 1: that both the work of King and the work of
Speaker 1: Bramf and Brenner provide frameworks for which us to explore
Speaker 1: those realities more intentionally. Yeah. Absolutely, And your work all
Speaker 1: on its own is pretty darn awesome, if I must
Speaker 1: say so myself. You mention how well being is far
Speaker 1: from uniform, and you talk in your work about certain concepts.
Speaker 1: I'd love to unpack a little bit. Two concepts in
Speaker 1: particular I thought were really interesting, the idea of community
Speaker 1: well being and the idea of collective efficacy. Could you
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about those two concepts, And I mean,
Speaker 1: they're obviously very much linked to each other, of course,
Speaker 1: And I think that part of this whole question around
Speaker 1: community well being is how communities have an ethos where
Speaker 1: there is an issue of both. And a lot of
Speaker 1: my work I should also honor the work and another
Speaker 1: mentor person I've had the great privilege of working and
Speaker 1: thinking with in one who I know you know is
Speaker 1: doctor Isaac Bralotinsky, and he talks about the whole issue
Speaker 1: around mattering, and so mattering as he defines it, I
Speaker 1: believe is both adding value and being valued. And so
Speaker 1: in a community well being, there is a value. And
Speaker 1: this is very much premised in a lot of principles
Speaker 1: of positive psychology when we look at assets, but unfortunately
Speaker 1: in many communities we do not necessarily look at people
Speaker 1: with a disability, or someone who is an English language learner,
Speaker 1: or someone who is an undocumented immigrant or a refugee
Speaker 1: and looking at their assets and if we really believe
Speaker 1: in the inherent dignity of all people, to me, that's
Speaker 1: a foundational precept of community wellbeing because therefore it means
Speaker 1: that we will value you on what you bring and
Speaker 1: how your worldview, what your worldview is, how you see
Speaker 1: things has value. It's very different from a very stark
Speaker 1: black white, right wrong framework, which means that there's a
Speaker 1: lot of room for nuances there and it invites people
Speaker 1: in as they are, and so looking at the opportunity
Speaker 1: for us to really have an inclusive community of grace
Speaker 1: where we value those assets, to me, is at the
Speaker 1: heart of community wellbeing, and I do think that sometimes
Speaker 1: we've lost some of those elements, particularly as we speak
Speaker 1: now this is a January of twenty twenty two. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of polarization that I do believe is
Speaker 1: really stressing people on an individual and a community level.
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen is certainly bought to the four. This whole
Speaker 1: notion around interdependency. I don't wear a mask, and I'm
Speaker 1: putting other people at risk. I don't get a vaccine
Speaker 1: and I put other people at risk. And I'm speaking
Speaker 1: to you from Massachusetts, where hospitals have asked people and
Speaker 1: rescheduled surgeries even for people who have cancer, to say
Speaker 1: that we don't have enough space here for you to
Speaker 1: come in. And they're beginning to prioritize because physicians are
Speaker 1: caring for people in hallways. There just isn't the person power,
Speaker 1: not only in Massachusetts, but as I understand from listening
Speaker 1: to news clips, it's happening across the country. So if
Speaker 1: we indeed do prescribe to community wellness and collective efficacy,
Speaker 1: and going back to Brown from Benner and doctor Keing,
Speaker 1: it's an acknowledgment of our interdependencies and what I do
Speaker 1: does matter. It affects my neighbor, my family, my friends,
Speaker 1: people in my workplace, in my school, in my community,
Speaker 1: and my participation also can enhance others well being. The
Speaker 1: way that I look at things my worldview may be
Speaker 1: a paradigm shift for you and a conversation that you
Speaker 1: and I have, Scott, that may encourage you to look
Speaker 1: at things at a different way. And I certainly should
Speaker 1: honor your brilliant Scott and saying you certainly have encouraged
Speaker 1: me to look at things in a different way. And
Speaker 1: this to me is at the heart of a conversation,
Speaker 1: in saying it starts with a conversation at the heart
Speaker 1: of community well being and also at the heart of
Speaker 1: collective efficacy. Yeah, I was going to say the conversation
Speaker 1: part for sure. Yeah, I'm going to read a quote
Speaker 1: of yours I really like because I think inextricably intertwined
Speaker 1: with what you're just saying are is the idea of
Speaker 1: social identity And this gets the heart of a lot
Speaker 1: of your work. Known you for a couple of years now,
Speaker 1: and I know that this is something you're really, really
Speaker 1: deeply passionate about and you've done great work around So
Speaker 1: I'm going to read this quote about it social identities.
Speaker 1: You say, our multiple social identities and the cultural externalities
Speaker 1: of our lives are inextricably linked and ground self perception,
Speaker 1: behavior relationships, and the evaluation of others. Can you kind
Speaker 1: of unpack that quote able bit more? And why is
Speaker 1: our social identity such an important part of our humanity?
Speaker 1: Of course, and a lot of my work really prescribes
Speaker 1: and it's based very strongly on the work of Kimberly Crenshaw,
Speaker 1: Law professor at UCLA and intersectionality, because every single one
Speaker 1: of us has more than one identity we can identity,
Speaker 1: and it's really a question of you know, some people
Speaker 1: call a master a master status or a master identity,
Speaker 1: but almost all of us have a razor ethnicity and
Speaker 1: some gender identity, be it male, female, gender non binary.
Speaker 1: A lot of us very strongly identify with a religon,
Speaker 1: with a cultural background, with a language background. Many of
Speaker 1: us identify with a profession. Here we are talking about
Speaker 1: on psychology the podcast, So how who we are? It
Speaker 1: has a lot to do with how we've been socialized.
Speaker 1: Those of us who are Christian or socialized, for example,
Speaker 1: differently than those of us who are Jewish, or Muslim
Speaker 1: or Buddhist for example. Our traditions and our culture have
Speaker 1: a lot to do and inform our worldviews. And I
Speaker 1: do believe that a lot of times this puts us
Speaker 1: at logger heads. It also is a question to me, Scott,
Speaker 1: of also looking at meaning making, because it's a question
Speaker 1: of if we look at these qualities of our identities,
Speaker 1: an essentialist might say that there's an essential distinction or
Speaker 1: difference between someone who comes from any one of those identities.
Speaker 1: And even though we look at the science, we know
Speaker 1: that there's not a biological difference between someone who is
Speaker 1: black or so one who is Jewish or someone who
Speaker 1: is Muslim. But a constructionist believes that these kind of
Speaker 1: identities are constructed through a social process. And I think
Speaker 1: that that and of itself, when we just talk about
Speaker 1: identity and how we make meaning of those identities, is
Speaker 1: this a biological predictor or something? And unfortunately, the biological prediction,
Speaker 1: as we all know, has gotten us into a slippery
Speaker 1: slope of deciding who matters and who doesn't, and who's
Speaker 1: better or not and the whole issue of stigma. And
Speaker 1: so I'll pick disabled people for example, is looking at
Speaker 1: them as broken people as opposed to looking at their
Speaker 1: brilliance and the numbers of folks who live with disabilities
Speaker 1: and live glorious lives and are extraordinarily productive. And so
Speaker 1: that doesn't you don't have to be consigned to the margins.
Speaker 1: But unfortunately, identity it's a question of how it's the
Speaker 1: meaning making question to me, that definition in and of itself,
Speaker 1: of you believe it's a social process, which to me
Speaker 1: clearly is where I stand versus an essentialist who thinks
Speaker 1: that this is a predestination almost and it's an objective category.
Speaker 1: And I think that this is part of the challenge
Speaker 1: and the clash that we are having presently in the
Speaker 1: United States. What specifically are you referring to as a
Speaker 1: social category? Are you talking about identities like specifically yes, yes, yes,
Speaker 1: our identity socially constructed meaning through how we're socialized. Or
Speaker 1: are they a biological trait? So if you are born
Speaker 1: with a disability, or you are born as a black person,
Speaker 1: is that an essential trait that is part of you
Speaker 1: and part of your genetic makeup that makes you essentially
Speaker 1: different from someone else? And that's the essentialist piece. Constructive
Speaker 1: pieces looking at the political and legal and economic and
Speaker 1: religious institutions, the socialization process and sees it that's a
Speaker 1: social construction. I would hazard to say that every single
Speaker 1: person who is black, or who is Jewish, or has
Speaker 1: a disability, whatever the case may be, is not exactly
Speaker 1: the same. There's some people who really want to try
Speaker 1: to boil it down to categories that are very linear
Speaker 1: and very discreet. I do believe that clearly the psychological
Speaker 1: feel allows the individual manifestation of various identities to differ.
Speaker 1: So one person who has an LGBTQ identity is not
Speaker 1: the same as another who has an LGBTQ identity. Some
Speaker 1: folks would view them as all being the same, all
Speaker 1: being deficit damaged, and that's more of the essentialist perspective.
Speaker 1: Are you following me, Scott? Yeah, But a big part
Speaker 1: of my identity for most of my life was and
Speaker 1: still is is neurodivergent, you know, and that was influenced
Speaker 1: by some biological characteristics. I think what you're saying, which
Speaker 1: I'm very much on board with, is the idea that well,
Speaker 1: first of all, you're saying a lot of things. I mean,
Speaker 1: let's unpack this because this is really important. So identity
Speaker 1: is something that you can choose to integrate into your
Speaker 1: identity or not integrate regardless of your characteristics. Right, Like,
Speaker 1: I know some people in the for instance, the gifted
Speaker 1: education community don't want that as part of their identity,
Speaker 1: and some of them really do. Some people really embrace it.
Speaker 1: They say, you know, I'm a gifted person. You know,
Speaker 1: when I was a child in school, I was a
Speaker 1: gift education. That's a really important part of my identity.
Speaker 1: And some people want to escape that identity from their
Speaker 1: school early childhood. So, and that's just the one example
Speaker 1: comes to mind, because I'm really interested in like under
Speaker 1: representation of people in gifted education programs and that topic.
Speaker 1: So I think that's something that we're definitely both on
Speaker 1: board with. It is that idea that your biology is
Speaker 1: there's an a one to one mapping there between your
Speaker 1: biology and your identity. Yes, that's very true. I do
Speaker 1: not think that there's a one to one mapping. And
Speaker 1: I think that the whole question of meaning making, of
Speaker 1: how we make meaning of our own identities and what
Speaker 1: that means to us. I do believe that the socialization
Speaker 1: process in the US is extraordinarily powerful, and I often
Speaker 1: use the work of Bobby harrow and looking at socialization
Speaker 1: that we're basically born as a blank slate, But then
Speaker 1: our families, the communities we live in, our schools, workplaces,
Speaker 1: even messages, billboards, song lyrics, television ads define us and
Speaker 1: sort us and give us a sense of who matters,
Speaker 1: if you will, and who does not matter. And unfortunately
Speaker 1: some of these categories have been dehumanized. And I do
Speaker 1: believe that the whole stigmatization of idea identities is really
Speaker 1: where we have a problems. You Scott are talking about
Speaker 1: the neurodivergent community. Some people would really the whole issue
Speaker 1: of stigmatization in various identities is really really problematic. So
Speaker 1: it's the distinction between how I view myself and how
Speaker 1: others view me. I'm a good friend who grew up
Speaker 1: in the Bronx in the middle of a Spanish speaking community,
Speaker 1: and her first day of kindergarten when she was five,
Speaker 1: was told, if you can't speak English, don't talk Spanish
Speaker 1: is a dirty, nasty language and we don't use it.
Speaker 1: And she's thinking, as a five year old, these are
Speaker 1: my family, These are the people who love me, who've
Speaker 1: cared for me, and everyone I know, my priest, the
Speaker 1: person who has the corner bodega. You know, my aunties,
Speaker 1: my grandparents, and what kind of statement is that about
Speaker 1: me and my culture. So it's the issue of how
Speaker 1: it's defined externally and how we find it ourselves, and
Speaker 1: a lot of us are forced to code switch and
Speaker 1: do a lot of spanning of kind of a community
Speaker 1: we feel safe in to really flourish, Taking from Seligman's words,
Speaker 1: in a community where we have to be very guarded
Speaker 1: and the whole motion around chronic vigilance that's brought up
Speaker 1: in the work of doctor David Williams and what chronic
Speaker 1: vigilance does to us over time because we're constantly protecting
Speaker 1: our identities on ourselves for fear of being damaged, traumatized,
Speaker 1: the stress levels. Yeah, I completely agree. It's a great,
Speaker 1: great point and it relates to your point that other
Speaker 1: ring can be a significant barrier to all being. Can
Speaker 1: you talk a little bit about that, and you know
Speaker 1: what is how do you see othering? What's your definition
Speaker 1: of that? Well? I see other ing as being one
Speaker 1: of the major challenges of the twenty first century was
Speaker 1: a challenge of the twentieth century. If you look at
Speaker 1: the Nazi concentration camps and the civil rights movements. But
Speaker 1: now I think that we are really in another wave
Speaker 1: of some of these dark marginalization, and I think in
Speaker 1: the US it doesn't really matter African American, LATINX, Native
Speaker 1: Indigenous with a disability LGBTQ, neuro divergent in a land
Speaker 1: of relative affluent. It's a struggle to be other. It's
Speaker 1: this notion of constantly trying to assimilate. Kin Ji Yoshina,
Speaker 1: a professor at Yale, has written a book called Covering
Speaker 1: that talks about how we try to assimilate and cover
Speaker 1: our identities that we want to fit in. It's the
Speaker 1: issue of that the nail that sticks out gets hammered down,
Speaker 1: and the more that we assimilate and fit into a norm.
Speaker 1: In the United States, there's very much a norm around
Speaker 1: a white, dominant male culture and it's brought to the
Speaker 1: four very strongly in the work of Elizabeth Wilkerson, as
Speaker 1: she talks about in the book Cast and basically aligning
Speaker 1: the US system as a cast system. A cast as
Speaker 1: we all know, anybody who's broken a bone, it immobilizes
Speaker 1: that bone you cannot move, and so in a cast system,
Speaker 1: coming from the comparison of the US social system, with
Speaker 1: the system in India is the notion that there's no
Speaker 1: way to move, there's no mobility. So the othered, all
Speaker 1: of those who were othered, be it because of race, ethnicity,
Speaker 1: documentation status, immigration status, they've been in the they've been incarcerated,
Speaker 1: they've been in the foster care system. How they can
Speaker 1: actually move out of that marginalize identity into an achievement
Speaker 1: of well being? And sometimes it is very difficult because
Speaker 1: of the socialization process of being devalued by systems and
Speaker 1: culture and the internal messages that we get that I
Speaker 1: am less than women, are less than men, lack folks
Speaker 1: are less than white folks. People who don't speak English
Speaker 1: as a first language are less than people who do
Speaker 1: speak English as a first language. The whole issue of
Speaker 1: heteronormativity and LGBTQ folks are other. And then we go
Speaker 1: through a round of legal battles and everything else to
Speaker 1: get rights. But rights an actual oh, kind of embracing
Speaker 1: perspectives and recognizing your inherent dignity are not the same thing. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: A big, big, core theme of your work is respecting
Speaker 1: the inherent dignity of everyone. Where do you think we
Speaker 1: are in our society right now in terms of progress.
Speaker 1: You know, you see, you know, there is a lot
Speaker 1: of cultural messaging that is saying that women are just
Speaker 1: as good as men, and that black lives some black
Speaker 1: lives matter, and me too. So let's just take those
Speaker 1: two big movements. Certainly, that's that's a development shift in
Speaker 1: our culture that didn't from like even ten years ago, right,
Speaker 1: certainly fifty years ago, sixty years ago. Oh my gosh.
Speaker 1: So you know, so where do you think we're at
Speaker 1: right now? And obviously we still have a long way
Speaker 1: to go, But I would say in a lot of ways,
Speaker 1: our cultural messaging writ large, isn't that, you know, only
Speaker 1: white men matter. I mean I'm seeing I'm seeing a
Speaker 1: huge cultural sort of shift. Are you seeing the same
Speaker 1: shift or are you not? In some places, I think
Speaker 1: people are talking about it. It's as you said, Scott,
Speaker 1: we're seeing more messaging. And I agree with that. It's
Speaker 1: a distinction between messaging and taking theory to practice and
Speaker 1: to action. So I know that President Obama, for example,
Speaker 1: signed into law the Lily Ledbetter Act, and so when
Speaker 1: you look at pay equity, there's still gaps. You know,
Speaker 1: it takes several more months for women of color to
Speaker 1: reach pay equity with white women. It takes white women
Speaker 1: several months to gain pay equity with white men. So
Speaker 1: why is it that if you have the same education,
Speaker 1: same degrees, you are not valued as much as a
Speaker 1: capitalistic system. A lot of us is based on a market,
Speaker 1: and so the market based economy kind of really is
Speaker 1: the ultimate arbiture of if we're moving towards that, there
Speaker 1: is more dialogue with some of the history, particularly as
Speaker 1: you look at assets, strategies, and struggles, is hard to overcome.
Speaker 1: A lot of the work that I'd done earlier on
Speaker 1: was in looking at economic security and assets, and I
Speaker 1: was privileged to do work with the Ford Foundation in
Speaker 1: looking at the whole notion of closing the racial wealth gap.
Speaker 1: And when you have a history where land ownership was
Speaker 1: denied to African Americans, land was taken from Native and
Speaker 1: Indigenous folks, LATINX people a lot of them had land
Speaker 1: taken from them and were not allowed entry into and
Speaker 1: so the history of such things as redlining and land
Speaker 1: loss is something that's still being fought and litigated. So
Speaker 1: the history that we have has automatically put some groups
Speaker 1: clearly at a disadvantage over others. So it's the question
Speaker 1: around equity, and people are still trying to gain parity.
Speaker 1: So it's a daily struggle, I do believe. Yeah for
Speaker 1: many people. Yeah, and for many people, they it's not
Speaker 1: the daily struggle. So because it's not part of their
Speaker 1: lived experience, it might be hard for them to recognize
Speaker 1: that it is very much a part of the lid
Speaker 1: experience for many people. So I think that that kind
Speaker 1: of perspective taking is absolutely essential, and I agree you know,
Speaker 1: it's important to recognize this is this is a daily
Speaker 1: struggle for millions and millions of Americans and obviously are
Speaker 1: globally billions. Let's talk a little bit about equity because
Speaker 1: you just mentioned that word, and I have not kept
Speaker 1: a secret that I absolutely adore your definition of equity,
Speaker 1: So I'm going to read it right now because I
Speaker 1: love it. You say equity means giving everyone what they
Speaker 1: need to succeed, with the understanding that not everyone has
Speaker 1: had the same opportunities or ability to be heard. It
Speaker 1: seems like you, which I very much agree with, equate
Speaker 1: equity with equality of opportunity. Is that right? It's the
Speaker 1: opportunity parts a part of it. The opportunity part and
Speaker 1: that being heard part going back to the importance of
Speaker 1: a conversations God is perspective sharing. So you mentioned bron
Speaker 1: from Benner and I talked a little bit about being
Speaker 1: in Russia and coming to the US. If I'm an immigrant,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter where I'm from, if I'm from Vietnam
Speaker 1: or Cambodia or Mexico, are from Rwanda, My perspective and
Speaker 1: the assets I bring can actually deepen the richness of
Speaker 1: pluralism in the US. And I think that it's the
Speaker 1: combination of both of those elements. It's really really important.
Speaker 1: I also like you use the word ability. I mean
Speaker 1: you very rarely see the word ability, you know, in
Speaker 1: any definition of equity. So there's a lot of components
Speaker 1: of your definition. I really like same opportunities or ability
Speaker 1: to be heard. So let's unpack that. Let's do a
Speaker 1: cook on that. That's an area of mutual interest of ours,
Speaker 1: among other areas we've already discussed today, and that's you know,
Speaker 1: this idea of you know, even just people with disability,
Speaker 1: people with mental disability. So it doesn't just have to
Speaker 1: be physical disability when we use the word disability. Some
Speaker 1: people may have a certain abilities or skills that makes
Speaker 1: it difficult for them to be heard or be seen,
Speaker 1: to be recognized for the amazing strengths that do lie
Speaker 1: within them, but they're not able to express them as well.
Speaker 1: So how does that play out in some of your
Speaker 1: own work that idea? Well, the ability piece and I'll
Speaker 1: just be personal here for a brief moment. My only
Speaker 1: sibling was born severely brain damaged, and so growing up
Speaker 1: in the household with a brother who didn't speak, his
Speaker 1: ability to be heard was primarily, unfortunately, in the time
Speaker 1: that we grew up in the sixties and seventies, was
Speaker 1: through my mother, who was the one who basically had
Speaker 1: to be the translator advocate. Why is it that there
Speaker 1: are no schools for at the time so called retarded
Speaker 1: children in the Cleveland, Ohio area, And so the ability
Speaker 1: piece was my mother often would ask the question do
Speaker 1: people understand? And I would say, at this point in time, no,
Speaker 1: I don't think they do, because they haven't lived that
Speaker 1: kind of life. And so the ability to be heard
Speaker 1: is can you It's the old adage we use is
Speaker 1: can you walk a mile in my shoes? Can you
Speaker 1: look at this from the way that I see it
Speaker 1: and understand that it may be very much different from
Speaker 1: the way that you see it, but my perspective is
Speaker 1: just as valid as yours. And so we have whole
Speaker 1: classes of people who don't speak English, who have a
Speaker 1: variety of communication challenges, who may be deaf and speak
Speaker 1: asl and how much do general legislative bodies hear them
Speaker 1: to people who have different perspectives. And our ability to
Speaker 1: hear is influenced by our ability to understand and to
Speaker 1: be open to those perspectives. And so if the world
Speaker 1: views aren't the same as we started off talking about
Speaker 1: definitions and words and meaning making, they can be confusing
Speaker 1: and often discounted because your perspective and worldview is not
Speaker 1: the same as mine, and there for I am marginalized
Speaker 1: seeing or negating your reality. Yeah, So building on that,
Speaker 1: what is intersectional equity, because that's a subset of equity
Speaker 1: more generally that you talk about. So I want to
Speaker 1: give a chance to talk about intersectional equity as well. Well.
Speaker 1: Intersectional equity again comes out of the work of Kimberly Crenshawn.
Speaker 1: It's really looking at this whole question that we have
Speaker 1: so many identities and so just I'll take myself for example,
Speaker 1: you all can look at me and tell that I'm
Speaker 1: a woman of African American ancestry, and so there are
Speaker 1: two definitions that are right there, And I could be
Speaker 1: marginalized because of the female part of you and certain enclaves.
Speaker 1: People may be fine with the fact that I'm of
Speaker 1: African ancestry, but I'm a woman. I could also be
Speaker 1: marginalized in other enclays because of my racial and ethnic identity.
Speaker 1: And intersectional equity is really being able to look at
Speaker 1: a whole person who may embody numerous identities and still
Speaker 1: see their values in assets. Crenshaw's work looks for example,
Speaker 1: I'd use a woman who is Haitian, who has a disability,
Speaker 1: who is LGBTQ, and is an immigrant. Now, all of
Speaker 1: those identities would be marginalized in a traditional additional frame.
Speaker 1: She wasn't born in the US, she speaks Haitian Creole,
Speaker 1: she has a disability, and she's LGBTQ. And so consequently
Speaker 1: it's a question of how you look at the inherent
Speaker 1: dignity of that person, and it should not be in
Speaker 1: spite of it's the invitation of bringing the glory of
Speaker 1: all of the assets and strings that that person has
Speaker 1: as opposed to categorizing them and marginalizing them. And so
Speaker 1: it's the opportunity for her to have ability to be seen, heard, connected,
Speaker 1: and recognized. And I think that this is a big
Speaker 1: challenge at this particular moment in US society. It's back
Speaker 1: to the comment about silos and how we tend to
Speaker 1: silo people. And it's also a question of perspective sharing
Speaker 1: and can we be patient long enough to listen to
Speaker 1: perspectives which may not be ours and understand the value
Speaker 1: and validity in those perspectives. What is the paradox of differences?
Speaker 1: The paradox of differences, This is just a simple kind
Speaker 1: of All of us are members, are part of the
Speaker 1: human family. All of us are human, and so we
Speaker 1: have a ton in common if we really look at it.
Speaker 1: We are not polar bears, we are not seals, we
Speaker 1: are not jellyfish. But we are also like some people.
Speaker 1: So in looking at these categories, I may have more
Speaker 1: in common with people who are women. I may have
Speaker 1: more in common with people who grow up in Ohio,
Speaker 1: which is where I grew up. I may have more
Speaker 1: in common with people who are of African ancestry. But
Speaker 1: I myself am unique and so it's this issue of
Speaker 1: I do have things in common with certain groups, and
Speaker 1: I can make connections probably a little bit easier because
Speaker 1: we're basing it as we're talking about worldview and perspectives
Speaker 1: on a common perspective. But I am unique myself, and
Speaker 1: so I think sometimes we get into trouble. I'm concerned
Speaker 1: that we don't necessarily have a full appreciation of us
Speaker 1: all being members of the same human family, and can
Speaker 1: we really all recognize our inherent glory and dignity and assets.
Speaker 1: Going back to the positive psychology frame, because that positivity
Speaker 1: then should tell me if I'm a member of a
Speaker 1: human family and this Haitian woman with a variety of
Speaker 1: identities is a member of the human family, there is
Speaker 1: something glorious in all of us. And a lot of
Speaker 1: times we are focused far more on deficits and differences
Speaker 1: than we are on the human connection and then the
Speaker 1: individual identity. How can we also begin to appreciate the
Speaker 1: uniqueness that each of us bring. There is not another
Speaker 1: Scott Barry Kaufman, you and your glory. Scott, You're unlike
Speaker 1: any other person in the in the world. You call
Speaker 1: me weird. I didn't say weird I didn't use that word.
Speaker 1: I said, you're not, you're unlike and you are. You
Speaker 1: are the one and only, you are the very best.
Speaker 1: Scott Barry Kaufman is it's true, and it's true for
Speaker 1: better and worse. We're all in perfect humans, right and
Speaker 1: but we're all you know, well, most most of us
Speaker 1: are trying trying to do good in the world, which
Speaker 1: is I think I believe you know, Christine, this is
Speaker 1: a really really interesting sort of toggle here between On
Speaker 1: the one hand, you want to emphasize the importance of
Speaker 1: recognizing social identity, and you talked about intersectionality, But on
Speaker 1: the other hand, you say, we really want to recognize
Speaker 1: the commun humanity we have with each other, and some
Speaker 1: people kind of treat those things as either or, you know,
Speaker 1: like there are people, there are people and even listeners
Speaker 1: of this podcast that are heavy, heavy critics of the
Speaker 1: intersectionality kind of ideal. They say, you know that it's
Speaker 1: actually dividing, it's doing more more harm than good. It's
Speaker 1: it's causing us to divide each other and see each
Speaker 1: other based on these categories like race and sex and
Speaker 1: sexual identity as opposed to what we have in common.
Speaker 1: And I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Speaker 1: But I suspect you're you're saying, look, it's not either
Speaker 1: or folks, it's not you either have a common humanity
Speaker 1: or I appreciate any But we can appreciate lots of
Speaker 1: aspects of a human and what we have in common.
Speaker 1: And might being word in your mouth? Is that a
Speaker 1: fair summation? No, you're being fair. And I do think
Speaker 1: this gets to the notion of being seen that all
Speaker 1: of us, I think want to be seen. It's a
Speaker 1: part of being recognized. It's the thing in us as
Speaker 1: little children pulling on our parents or family cotail saying
Speaker 1: look at me. You know, It's what a two year
Speaker 1: old will do and kind of say me, me, me, me.
Speaker 1: We all want this. We want to be value and
Speaker 1: seen and loved, played and simple, you know, looking at
Speaker 1: Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and it's an innate component of
Speaker 1: each of us. But seeing that means I want you
Speaker 1: to be able to see my beauty. The fact that
Speaker 1: I am of African American ancestry. I can't change that
Speaker 1: fact that I'm a woman, the fact that you know,
Speaker 1: and so if you look at people, the fact that
Speaker 1: doctor Brown from Verneur is from Russia, the fact that
Speaker 1: doctor Preylotinsky is from Argentina. I mean, these are things.
Speaker 1: This is who this person is, and so can you
Speaker 1: value them in their inherent dignity and beauty and wisdom?
Speaker 1: Though that experience may make them slightly different from someone
Speaker 1: who is from Iowa, someone who is of a different gender,
Speaker 1: or religious or sexual orientation, whatever the case may be.
Speaker 1: So it's not the division. What it's saying is their
Speaker 1: assets here in this frame. And so to me, it's
Speaker 1: a question in a world if we move away from
Speaker 1: this notion around scarcity and abundance. It's not a zero
Speaker 1: sum game of there's less for me. If you have
Speaker 1: a seat at the table, can we get a bigger
Speaker 1: table so all of us can be at the same
Speaker 1: table and it's not displacing anyone, it's additive. So in
Speaker 1: my mind, it's a question of adding value some of
Speaker 1: the perspectives. I have a dear friend who immigrated as
Speaker 1: a child from Vietnam, and when I talked to her
Speaker 1: about her experiences completely different than Christine Robinson, who grew
Speaker 1: up outside of Cleveland, Ohio, I learn I learn about
Speaker 1: a different experience, worldview, perspective, what it's like to come
Speaker 1: in your formative years and make a new home and
Speaker 1: come from a family where many of your family members
Speaker 1: have been murdered, and how profound that experience is. We
Speaker 1: both experienced trauma, as I talk about my own background
Speaker 1: growing up to twenty four hour police protection when we
Speaker 1: moved into an all white neighborhood as a child. But
Speaker 1: my trauma was very different than her trauma fleeing, you know,
Speaker 1: and leaving Hanoi and getting in a boat and coming
Speaker 1: with her parents. Totally different story. But it's a fascinating
Speaker 1: conversation of our commonalities. And I'm just using that as
Speaker 1: an example of we share a common human family we
Speaker 1: also share. I am like some people. I can share
Speaker 1: in some of those experiences of how you overcame trauma
Speaker 1: and challenge and being othered and being ostracized and singled
Speaker 1: out and being told by a dominant culture that you
Speaker 1: aren't valued for your gender, for your racial and ethnic identity,
Speaker 1: for your accent, which he still has to this day.
Speaker 1: She doesn't speak English is fluently and how could she? So?
Speaker 1: I think that the intersectional piece. There is a way
Speaker 1: of greeting in Africa that basically says when people see
Speaker 1: each other, it is I see you, and I love
Speaker 1: that because what it's saying, it's an affirmation. If I
Speaker 1: see you, Scott, I'm seeing you and I'm thrilled. If
Speaker 1: you are neurodivergent, if you are a male of your
Speaker 1: Jewish ancestry, these are all assets. I'm interested. I want
Speaker 1: to know more. Tell me more about the assets within
Speaker 1: those various identities and many others that you bring to
Speaker 1: the table, and I want to understand. And seeing you
Speaker 1: does it make me feel divided from you? It makes
Speaker 1: me It encourages me to learn more. I believe from you.
Speaker 1: This is so interesting. It seems to me like it shouldn't.
Speaker 1: It's not really seeing, it's listening, because you know, you
Speaker 1: could see things about me that are not my identities.
Speaker 1: I mean, I do think I'm male, I do, but
Speaker 1: I'm saying in terms of how strong is that a
Speaker 1: part of my identity? You know, there are other things
Speaker 1: that I would much more rather like even psychologists, I
Speaker 1: would rather put above that, or like you know, just
Speaker 1: a lot of other things that would come first in
Speaker 1: the line of identities and that so it seems like
Speaker 1: just made me think, like the word seeing is it's
Speaker 1: it's more of a it's a it's a dialogue, right,
Speaker 1: And it goes back to your whole thing about conversation,
Speaker 1: it's about listening. Well, I think that what you're saying
Speaker 1: is very powerful because I think is an issue of
Speaker 1: self definition and we all know now that how people
Speaker 1: define themselves and choose to be seen. I think there's
Speaker 1: another step and respectful interactions of asking people just as
Speaker 1: you very respectfully asked me about my pronouns as I
Speaker 1: sound signed onto your podcast. Yeah, yeah, cool. So let's
Speaker 1: for the remainder of today, let's talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about your changes to the standard definition or your modified
Speaker 1: definition of community psychology. You've a modified definition of dignity.
Speaker 1: Let me call you. You said, the revised definition of
Speaker 1: community psychology urges us to build on human and communal
Speaker 1: assets and move from tragedy and trauma to dignity and restoration.
Speaker 1: What is the shift you're trying to make here? You know, like, yeah,
Speaker 1: really I want to I really want you to be
Speaker 1: able to articulate that to our audience. This is looking
Speaker 1: at an asset frame as opposed to a deficit frame.
Speaker 1: And so I strongly believe in the co creation, meaning
Speaker 1: how do we build with people? What do we do
Speaker 1: with people and not to them? And so as we
Speaker 1: move from an expert stance to a partner stance, and
Speaker 1: I think it is something that merit's thought in academic
Speaker 1: realms is who are the real experts in community? I
Speaker 1: think an operative word in community psychology, of course, is
Speaker 1: the word community. And so if you look at community
Speaker 1: being a neighborhood, or you could look at it from
Speaker 1: a societal perspective, who are those who really have expertise?
Speaker 1: And if we're looking at dignity, do I get to
Speaker 1: define that or is it an expert on the outside
Speaker 1: who decides what dignified treatment is? And a lot of
Speaker 1: times when you ask people what their needs are, what
Speaker 1: their wants are, what their priorities are, they may be
Speaker 1: different than what you may think as an outside expert.
Speaker 1: And so I believe strongly that it's important for us
Speaker 1: to leave the expert stance at the door if we
Speaker 1: are going to be open and ask how can I help?
Speaker 1: What would be of use? I learned part of this
Speaker 1: and my work in philanthropy of going into communities and
Speaker 1: systems change work saying well, these are the things that
Speaker 1: we could offer for the community. And when you ask
Speaker 1: the community, their response may be, well, what we really
Speaker 1: want here are street lights and a full service growth restore.
Speaker 1: And that may not be in the purview of that
Speaker 1: particular foundation to build a full service grocery store in
Speaker 1: the middle of the neighborhood, But if it's a neighborhood
Speaker 1: where there's a food desert, that could indeed be one
Speaker 1: of the most important things for the people who live there.
Speaker 1: And so often this notion of philanthropy, of social change,
Speaker 1: social engineering, if you will, of what we think populations
Speaker 1: may need or want may not be the same thing
Speaker 1: that they need or want if you sit down and
Speaker 1: talk to them. Yeah. Yeah, that's a really good point again,
Speaker 1: and come back to listening. The listening part. There's a
Speaker 1: couple of changes you made to the standard definition of
Speaker 1: community psychology. One is you replace the term communities that's
Speaker 1: often used in the community. It's in the thing deaf
Speaker 1: community psychology. Maybe you should be change it too. You're
Speaker 1: saying change and maybe the inclusive society psychology. Maybe that's
Speaker 1: that's one change. Well, yeah, and I talk about incive
Speaker 1: society because of Bramfreenbrenner's influence. I think the community, and
Speaker 1: I get where it's coming from. It's our communal interactions
Speaker 1: with each other. But some people would take that to
Speaker 1: be a neighborhood, if you will. And because we are
Speaker 1: structured as a nation the way that we are, with
Speaker 1: systems and policies and infrastructure from the federal to the
Speaker 1: regional to the municipal and or county level into neighborhoods,
Speaker 1: we have to look beyond just the community. The community,
Speaker 1: of course has power, but not when we're looking at
Speaker 1: a lot of the systemic structural changes that could actually
Speaker 1: enhance well being. So I think that that's an important thing,
Speaker 1: and not that the entire name of the field should
Speaker 1: be changed, but I think that it goes far beyond
Speaker 1: in quotation marks a neighborhood. And it's here we go
Speaker 1: again talking about words and definitions. Is a community, is
Speaker 1: it a neighborhood or now we could talk about a
Speaker 1: virtual community. Now in this COVID world, they're communities that
Speaker 1: span geography, and they're communities of positive psychologists. For example,
Speaker 1: that spanned the globe and it is part of a community,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't have a neighborhood footprint. It's not these
Speaker 1: two square miles for example. Yeah, yeah, it's a really
Speaker 1: good point. And also the distinction in community and society.
Speaker 1: I mean, society seems to think more like nebulous, abstract
Speaker 1: and you know, who is a society we keep talking
Speaker 1: about when we say society doesn't believe in XT society
Speaker 1: doesn't like why, Well, certain communities sure, ken, you know,
Speaker 1: and what are the communities? Right? That's to me. Communities
Speaker 1: just feels more concrete. It feels more like, you know,
Speaker 1: what are you embedded in? You know? And so I
Speaker 1: like it. Another change here, definite to the definition of
Speaker 1: community coology is the insertion of co creation alongside capacity
Speaker 1: building you say, quote co creating potential pathways to address
Speaker 1: the numerous cycles of socialization, unbreeding, deficit narratives and work
Speaker 1: spanning all levels of civic discourse, address structural and systemic
Speaker 1: causesive I'm coptraling causesive factors in community psychology practice. Can
Speaker 1: you unpack that a little bit? That's a yes, that's
Speaker 1: really there's a lot there. There's a lot there. Well,
Speaker 1: the co creation piece is doing things with people instead
Speaker 1: of doing things to people. And so we're backing into
Speaker 1: the having a conversation and listening. There's an assumption about causation,
Speaker 1: and I think that so much of the psychological research
Speaker 1: with theories that base the root cause of elements and
Speaker 1: what is the root cause really? And I think here
Speaker 1: we go again back to this whole question around meaning
Speaker 1: making and analysis and perspective. If you ask the root
Speaker 1: cause of certain things that have happened in certain populations,
Speaker 1: you're going to get very different answers across the country.
Speaker 1: And so I think it's really a call in community
Speaker 1: psychology to make certain that you've got room at the
Speaker 1: table for very diverse perspectives. I know in the paper
Speaker 1: I quote the disability rights movement talking about nothing about
Speaker 1: us without us, and I think that that spans all
Speaker 1: of the various communities that you could be in us.
Speaker 1: That if we are going to do something a community,
Speaker 1: it's not just the in quotation marks city fathers or
Speaker 1: city mothers, or the city council or the board of selectmen,
Speaker 1: or some academic institutions who would come in and develop
Speaker 1: a blueprint. It's the residents and the people who work there,
Speaker 1: who live there, who worship there, who walk the streets
Speaker 1: every day. Their perspectives could be very very different and
Speaker 1: for some reason, here we go again with the power dynamics,
Speaker 1: we tend to discount the voices of those people. So
Speaker 1: that's going back to the way that I grew up
Speaker 1: with my mother, who's basically saying, let's find a way
Speaker 1: my son was born brain damaged. Is there not a
Speaker 1: way that we can have an educational system that is
Speaker 1: inclusive and includes children who were developmentally disable? And is
Speaker 1: this not in the societal interest? So the co creation
Speaker 1: a lot of that, certainly, I've learned over my career,
Speaker 1: but I also learned it as a child growing up
Speaker 1: because it was her vigilance. When I was a kid,
Speaker 1: I never knew where we were going. She would pick
Speaker 1: me up from school. We'd be in the mayor's office,
Speaker 1: the superintendent of schools, the county commissioner's office, and she
Speaker 1: would say, I have a child. He is not a disgrace.
Speaker 1: He is eight years old and he's unable to go
Speaker 1: to school, and he was born severely brain damaged. Is
Speaker 1: there a way that we can work across this county
Speaker 1: to develop an educational system that's inclusive of all children. Yes, amen, Amen,
Speaker 1: I definitely agree with that, and and these things, these
Speaker 1: forms of discrimination have very significant impacts on chronic stress
Speaker 1: and our biological functioning and our ability to self actualize.
Speaker 1: This is this is why this inextricably intertwined nature of
Speaker 1: all these different elements matters right now. Can you talk
Speaker 1: a little bit about some of that research. Sure, a
Speaker 1: lot of the work of doctor Bruce McEwan, who was
Speaker 1: a neuroscientist at Rockefeller University. He passed about a year ago, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: but he did amazing work on alistatic load. And so
Speaker 1: what we find is children who experience discrimination, it can
Speaker 1: be their own experience of it or observing a parent.
Speaker 1: You know, I go into a restaurant and my parents
Speaker 1: are not seated. I go into a store and they
Speaker 1: just overlook us and let us sit there. Bullying on
Speaker 1: the playground, looking at police brutality, looking at racial profiling
Speaker 1: in the various media outlets. And this is traumatic and
Speaker 1: what it results in is, quite frankly, everything that we
Speaker 1: don't want to see in an educational system. Decrease in
Speaker 1: self efficacy, an increase sense of hopelessness, increase in depression,
Speaker 1: and we know that life long. In his research, he's
Speaker 1: documented impacts and effects such as increase in low birth
Speaker 1: weight in the children of these children who've been affected,
Speaker 1: increase in immune deficiency, which is one of the major
Speaker 1: issues we're dealing with now with COVID nineteen, and increase
Speaker 1: in a number of chronic stress conditions. So we all
Speaker 1: know a lot about health disparities and hypertension and stroke
Speaker 1: and cancer, a number of illnesses that are chronic, but
Speaker 1: the stress component that's part of these illnesses can be
Speaker 1: directly traced back to a lot of the chronic stress
Speaker 1: and stressors of struggling in a world that does not
Speaker 1: recognize your inherent dignity, and back to chronic vigilance. Doctor
Speaker 1: David Williams tells a story of a black man who,
Speaker 1: every time he goes to the corner store just to
Speaker 1: the seven eleven, puts on a suit coat and a
Speaker 1: white shirt and a tie because he knows that he
Speaker 1: will be treated differently, and just being under that kind
Speaker 1: of pressure every time I leave my home, I need
Speaker 1: to pay attention to how I speak, to how I'm dressed,
Speaker 1: to what I say, to what I do. Puts our
Speaker 1: entire system under a lot of stress in comparison to
Speaker 1: someone who's got a T shirt and a pair of shorts.
Speaker 1: I need a gallon of milk. I'm going to hop in,
Speaker 1: hop out, and keep on going. It's a different type
Speaker 1: of living, if you will. This is why I started
Speaker 1: wearing a suit on my podcast, because people weren't taking
Speaker 1: me seriously. So there's a new thing, a new development.
Speaker 1: It's true. Okay, So I want to well, let's end
Speaker 1: with this idea of cultural intelligence. Well, this idea, Ting
Speaker 1: Toomey write nineteen ninety nine seminole paper outlined four stages
Speaker 1: for stage process to move toward culture intelligence. Let's get
Speaker 1: us move in there. Let's leave on that note, getting
Speaker 1: us all moving. You got it, You got it. Ting
Speaker 1: Toomey's work, and she her area of expertise is actually
Speaker 1: International Communications, University of California, Fullerton. And I've been really
Speaker 1: struck by her work because she first of all tells
Speaker 1: us that Americans drastically over estimate their ability and fluency
Speaker 1: with other cultures. The reality of their ability to take
Speaker 1: on other perspectives, the actual ability of Americans to take
Speaker 1: on other perspectives is not very high, very much. Seeing
Speaker 1: things in a very prescribed view, she calls that unconscious incompetent.
Speaker 1: Unconscious incompetence. Excuse me, we are unconsciously incompetent and unaware
Speaker 1: of what we don't know, and that ignorance in and
Speaker 1: of itself is a problem because we're stumbling over our
Speaker 1: own two feet and making assumptions about who other people
Speaker 1: are and who other people aren't. What she wants us
Speaker 1: to move on to as the next step is moving
Speaker 1: to be consciously incompetent. And it's interesting here because it's
Speaker 1: recognizing the fact that I don't know much about you.
Speaker 1: You're from Rwanda, and I realize that I don't know
Speaker 1: a lot about people from Rwanda, or from Venezuela or
Speaker 1: from Bhutan, and so could you tell me a little bit?
Speaker 1: Can I understand a little bit? And how can I
Speaker 1: understand more about these realities? Moving up that ladder is
Speaker 1: is getting to conscious competence, where I can feel comfortable
Speaker 1: in these communities, and actually, unconscious and competence is the
Speaker 1: highest level where we actually have proficiency and mastery. And
Speaker 1: so I make this akin almost to professional endeavor if
Speaker 1: I was. The medical equivalent is that I have to
Speaker 1: become aware of the challenge I have to practice. I
Speaker 1: have to internalize the skills before I come a master.
Speaker 1: I have a number of friends who are physicians, some
Speaker 1: extraordinarily talented surgeons. We're talking about twelve, fourteen, even sixteen
Speaker 1: years with some of them of what it takes to
Speaker 1: be the person in the middle of the night if
Speaker 1: you're in an automobile accident and you end up in
Speaker 1: the emergency room. I am unconsciously competent because I know
Speaker 1: exactly what I need to do. And so I think
Speaker 1: that we are at an inflection point as a nation
Speaker 1: where many people feeling, Oh, I read a book, I
Speaker 1: listened to a podcast to respect Scott, and now I've
Speaker 1: got this. I got this downpat And if we look
Speaker 1: at the number of identities that we need to address,
Speaker 1: be it race, ethnicity, LGBTQ, socioeconomic status, people who are
Speaker 1: housing in secure, who are food insecure, who speak languages
Speaker 1: other than English, just a black white dynamic in the
Speaker 1: US is not going to cut it. And so it's
Speaker 1: really beginning to develop the listening skills the patients, the
Speaker 1: questioning skills to understand that my worldview is indeed valid.
Speaker 1: It is my worldview, but it may not be your worldview.
Speaker 1: And so entering into a conversation, how do I understand
Speaker 1: where the other person is coming from and if I
Speaker 1: really honor and value them as an equal, that's the
Speaker 1: co creation part. I invite their reality into the dialogue,
Speaker 1: and therefore I'm moving to a realm of cultural competence.
Speaker 1: I have a quick story that I want to just share,
Speaker 1: and it goes back to my own experience when I
Speaker 1: started to really talking about bringing theory to practice. I
Speaker 1: had the fortunate opportunity when I was in graduate school
Speaker 1: to work for the Department of Public Health on an
Speaker 1: infant mortality project and very much the same with We
Speaker 1: didn't call it health disparities then, but that's exactly what
Speaker 1: it was. And why were we seeing such a disparity
Speaker 1: in infant mortality and morbidity among African American, latinx Haitian,
Speaker 1: Cape Verdean, Mick mac Indian, Vietnamese, Khmer Laotian women. And
Speaker 1: I worked in inner city Boston, and one of the
Speaker 1: first questions in doing the focus groups with these various communities,
Speaker 1: and they were all translated, so I had the wonderful
Speaker 1: opportunity to go into different communities. They said, your grocery
Speaker 1: store is really hard for me. You wrap your fresh
Speaker 1: fruits and vegetables and plastic and I can't tell how
Speaker 1: fresh they are because I can't touch them. I go
Speaker 1: into the dairy section, but I don't understand this because
Speaker 1: there are no cows in Vietnam the Cape Fair Islands Haiti,
Speaker 1: and so I don't eat anything there. I go to
Speaker 1: your fish section, and you fill ay all the fish.
Speaker 1: You cut the heads off, so I can't tell how
Speaker 1: fresh they are by the clarity of their eyes. And
Speaker 1: you take the bones out. And I used to chew
Speaker 1: the bones as a source of calcium in my country,
Speaker 1: but the bones aren't there, and instead I look, even
Speaker 1: though I don't speak English, I'm standing at the bus stop.
Speaker 1: I see the ads on the side of the bus.
Speaker 1: I see the billboards, I see the pictures on TV,
Speaker 1: and I want to eat like an American. The Americans
Speaker 1: are the richest country in the world. So I buy
Speaker 1: Coca cola and potato chips and candy bars and pizza,
Speaker 1: because why would the government put those things on television
Speaker 1: and advertise for them if they weren't good for you.
Speaker 1: And so, just in that story, it was fascinating. These
Speaker 1: are people coming from countries where the government controlled the media,
Speaker 1: and so their assumption is that everything advertised is good
Speaker 1: for you. Their world experience and what they know, and
Speaker 1: so it wasn't a surprise to me when you're looking
Speaker 1: at nutritional intake that there are huge nutritional deficits and
Speaker 1: you would expect the very outcomes that we were seeing,
Speaker 1: But it was. I just think it's a really interesting
Speaker 1: example of I used listening. I listened to their voice
Speaker 1: and I'm understanding, okay, from their perspective. This is where
Speaker 1: the co creation piece comes in. I myself, as a
Speaker 1: black woman growing up in Cleveland, Ohio, would never have
Speaker 1: come to those kinds of conclusions without their input and
Speaker 1: helping us figure out as a public health system how
Speaker 1: we should address some of these challenges. Yeah. Yeah, this
Speaker 1: is such a great point, and thank you for sharing
Speaker 1: that story. It certainly relates to our political landscape and
Speaker 1: messaging from your favorite politicians and leaving them about certain things,
Speaker 1: and how that influences how you interact with others and
Speaker 1: how you particularly those that may differ from you. Right,
Speaker 1: I'm being very abstract here, you know what I'm saying. Look, Christine,
Speaker 1: I just want to thank you so so much for
Speaker 1: being on my podcast today, for being my friend, and
Speaker 1: for the amazing research you're doing. I really hope that
Speaker 1: I really hope we get this out there more your work,
Speaker 1: So thank you, me too, me too, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for having me. I really enjoyed this conversation, so
Speaker 1: I wish you all the best, and thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to this episode of the Psychology Podcast.
Speaker 1: If you'd like to react in some way to something
Speaker 1: you heard, I encourage you to join in the discussion
Speaker 1: that the Psychology Podcast or on our YouTube page thus
Speaker 1: Ecology Podcast. We also put up some videos of some
Speaker 1: episodes on our YouTube page as well, so you'll want
Speaker 1: to check that out. Thanks for being such a great
Speaker 1: supporter of the show, and tune in next time for
Speaker 1: more on the mind, brain, behavior, and creativity.