Working Paper 94-12 February 1994(1)
By Karen Raforth
Multicultural Counseling Center, University of Colorado - Boulder
(1) This paper is an edited transcript of a talk given by Karen Raforth for the Intractable Conflict/Constructive Confrontation Project on November 6, 1993. Funding for this Project was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the University of Colorado. All ideas presented are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Consortium, the University, or Hewlett Foundation. For more information, contact the Conflict Resolution Consortium, Campus Box 327, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309- 0327. Phone: (303) 492-1635, e-mail: crc@cubldr.colorado.edu.
© 1994. Conflict Resolution Consortium. Do not reprint without permission.
I am a psychologist at the Multicultural Center at CU-Boulder. I wear two main hats there. One is as a therapist and one is as a trainer or consultant on the "-isms," i.e., working with people on campus regarding racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. From those two hats, I have two perspectives on some of the questions that people have been raising for us today. As a psychologist, I am interested in comparing and contrasting the intergroup differences with the intragroup differences.
I am particularly interested in the conflicts within groups. I usually work with less-empowered groups. I don't say "disempowered" because every group has power; but not all power is acknowledged or felt, either by the minority group or the majority / dominant group. I am very interested in what goes on within each minority group, and also what goes on between all the minority groups when they are lumped together as perhaps a less- empowered conglomerate group. For example, when one uses a broad statement such as, "people of color," the diversity within the conglomerate is vast. Yet such broad brush statements are often used as a shorthand way of trying to talk with each other and trying to find commonality to get through some of these conflicts. Like others, I am often at a loss about how to accommodate the diversity within groups. I think examining this diversity is one of the keys to getting through some of the conflicts groups have.
I believe it is important to continue noticing and learning about the diversity within and between groups. For example, it is important to notice who is "at the table" and who is not. I notice today that the white people on this panel spoke first. A white man introduced this session, two white people spoke next, and the two people of color spoke last. That is how we are seated. The white people over there and the people of color over there. Now I don't know what that means, but it is important to notice and try to make meaning of it. It is important to notice that Henry is sitting over by the door. He is barely in the room, and he is in a wheel chair. That is probably not the most important thing about Henry, but it is important to notice his position from "the table." There are people standing outside the door peeking inside. Who is not even in the room? Who is not even able to get in? Those are the kinds of symbolic and concrete questions that we have to look at together if we want to work on conflict inherent in working together in a group. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed these things; there are many other examples we could discuss. Those are all important. I do not point these things out in order to blame or to judge. I notice in order to understand, to acknowledge. It is our differences that often frighten us and push us apart, so we may discount them. Yet our differences can also bring us together and make us much, much more as whole. It is something very important for all of us.
In my work with colleagues at the Center itself we have tried over the years to work together on our own racism, and as well as systemic racism, and have (* I couldn't read this word on the fax copy) at the interconnections with racism and the other "- isms." It is painful, difficult, complicated, and analytical work. We try to look at commonalities as well as different levels of oppression. Most people focus on one "-ism" in analyzing intergroup relationships, yet "-isms" all function simultaneously at different levels.
It is useful to me to think with a systems perspective, i.e., looking at the whole system, individuals, and groups together. There are four levels of oppression to consider: institutional, cultural, interpersonal, and personal. (Betts ? If this is a citation, we will need the entire citation) So, it is important to be aware of the institutional oppression (rules, policies, laws) that may be operating within any group or individual that you are working with, as well as the cultural ones (norms or unwritten rules that everybody knows about--like white people first). Then you have to look at both personal and interpersonal issues. Personal issues are those kinds things that we all harbor internally, whether we know or admit it or not. (I often say I am a recovering racist because there is always a corner in which you can push me, and there I am, my old training comes right back--it's right there on the tip of my tongue-- the words of racism). Interpersonal issues relate more to behavior, which we have tried to legislate. The behavior we exhibit may or may not reveal our personal attitudes, our prejudices, or our values. It often does, verbally as well as nonverbally. We have to look at all four of these levels of oppression and try to keep them in the forefront when we work with each other individually, in groups, and with systems.
From that perspective, you can also look at commonalities of oppression, although it is important to be careful how this is done. I believe generally in Audre Lorde's concept that "there is no hierarchy to oppression." But, that doesn't mean that an oppression that someone experiences might not feel worse to them or even might hold worse or more immediate consequences for them as compared to someone else. For example, as a lesbian I can "pass" as a straight person just as a biracial person might be able to "pass" as white. At times I can hide my sexual orientation, whereas Lerita and David cannot hide their race; it is always apparent. In some ways that is an advantage to me in that it may translate into a safety factor for me at times. Yet because of my group's invisibility, people can ignore my group, pretend my group does not exist, make up things about my group, or decide my group does not have any needs or rights.
So, all of these things have to be woven together. We all need education about these different levels. I believe it is my responsibility to educate myself. That is particularly important when you go out and work with another group. You have to take that extra step to try to be as educated as you can be before you reach out to or engage the "other" group. To just reach out to the group and say, "I'm here. I'm open, educate me," may result in a diversity of responses. It could be perceived as insulting. They may have more pressing concerns. Or, how many times are they supposed to open their hearts and risk getting trampled before "others" "get it"? Yet, sometimes the reaching out can be perceived as very affirming. So, no one from the communities of color or white communities pins any medal on me for working on my racism, just like no one in the LesBiGay community pins a medal on me for working on my own homophobia. It is something that I do for me, my communities, and my world. I can't expect reciprocity, trade-offs, or accolades.
In looking at some of the different levels of oppression, we all could benefit by examining the nature of the groups we are in and the memberships we hold in different groups. For example, are we a member of any "target" group? By target I mean the oppressed group, the group that gets dumped on, the less common, the less powerful, less privileged, nondominant, the group that gets labeled as the scapegoat--the group seen as "bad" people. It is important for all of us to recognize when we have membership in any of these groups. Also, we should look at when we are in a dominant group, when we are in the safety zone, the privileged, more powerful, more accepted group. In this case, we are okay, we aren't going to be harmed, because we have some special protection. For example, I am in a target group as a lesbian because I am in the minority and hence less empowered in terms of sexual orientation. Yet, I am very privileged and protected as a white person. I am in a target group as a woman. Yet, as a middle-class person, I have privilege in this culture. It is important to go back and forth. It is important to look at which dominant group you hold membership in and which target group you hold membership in. Often we get defined by others as having just one identity, "master status." We get locked into some little box: "Oh, you are an "X", one of those." This natural stereotyping can begin the conflict. It is important to others acknowledge your different identities and for you to acknowledge your different identities and powers.
One of the exercises that we often start with as a kind of warm-up in training is the simple question, "When was a time you ever felt different?" It is an important acknowledgement. Can you go back, for some of you, perhaps in your childhood, when you were the targeted person? At that moment you probably had a tiny twinge of something (hurt, pain, loneliness?) that can be built on to empathize with another target group. In my therapist hat, empathy is very important.
Listening is very important. Yet, we don't really listen to one another. It is a profound feeling to really listen to each other. In conflict situations we are often only yelling at each other or waiting to get our point in; we are not listening to each other. We are practicing for the next moment. We are rehearsing the perfect intervention, the perfect thing to say, even when we care about each other. When you don't care for the other person or group, or when you are angry with the other group, or scared by the other group, then listening is even harder. But just trying to go back to some of those things like truly, deeply listening can be a profoundly simple intervention which can be helpful.
We need to figure out how to validate ourselves and other groups, which we don't do. In a lot of the work that I do with white people, they feel like they are supposed to feel ashamed and guilty. That can be paralyzing and unlikely to be useful to stop there. Let's figure out how can those feelings help you move on productively? We need to feel good about our groups and validate the other groups, yet take responsibility for our negative aspects. It is easy to say, "Oh yes. I accept differences." But it is hard to operationalize. When we are successful, we need to try to remember how we achieved that success so we can repeat it.
I learned from my work with VISIONS to look at how we are responsible for a situation. I have sat in many meetings wondering, "How are we going to get through this?" What I see is people shredding each other. Sometimes the shredding needs to happen to get to the coming-back-together stage. It is part of the listening. It can be painful. We need to be aware, that due to the multiple levels of oppression in which we have all been raised, we may internalize these issues. For example, even if I am a lesbian, I have to struggle with my internalized homophobia, too. I was taught to fear, hate, or feel superior to gay, lesbian and bisexual people, even though I was a lesbian. It is in me, even if I don't like it. Whether I want it to be there or not, it is there. Again, don't run away from biases and the prejudice that you are experiencing inside, but rather, try to look at how they play out. How does it harm? What impact does it have? As a result, you will also be able to reach out to the "other," who ever the other is, and see perhaps how their internalized oppression may be influencing their actions. Then you can try to find out about that, or be supportive around that. Be aware that we are all learning together around these complicated issues.
We each need to look at what our own responsibility is--what our own personal responsibility is and what our group's responsibility is for making things worse or making things better. Sometimes the dominant group blames the victim, which adds to the problem. Many times, dominant and target groups avoid interacting with each other; they don't work to know each other. People often don't want to have friends or colleagues who are different from themselves. They do not seek out events in which they are exposed to others who are different from them. But we need to hear about others and their difference so we can all live together without psychologically or literally killing each other.
Another problem is that people often deny the political or cultural significance of what the other group brings to "the table." (VISIONS) That denial leads back to why we need to validate ourselves, know ourselves, our history, our values, and our beliefs. Also, we need to try to learn that about the other group and become aware of the diversity within the other group. For example, there is no "fact sheet" on how to deal with Native Americans because of the diversity within and between the many Native American tribes. The difference among Native American tribes is sometimes more than the commonalities. Therein lies our struggle, looking at our commonalities, yet acknowledging those differences and using difference to be creative together and enhance our work.
We need to recognize and understand all these complexities at once, and yet not give up on each other or ourselves. This is a complicated and life-long process. To me, being on a cross-cultural consultation team, working on racism and other "-isms" in a very new way, is probably one of the most enriching and difficult things that I have done. When I was first ripped to shreds by other white people during an anti-racism workshop, I was shocked. I realized there is a whole level of oppression and racism from which I was protected: I never dealt with before, never thought about, never felt, and never had to consider. I was protected by the privileges that I pulled around me to feel safe. This kind of pain was part of my growth. Some of the pain for me was understanding me, validating me, and looking at my group and the diversity in my group. "How dare white people attack me, I'm a white person. Why am I not protected?" Yet I was seen as a betrayer of my group. We were not recognizing the vast diversity within our group of white people.
We need to look at all these factors. We need to look at our biases, to not be afraid of them, to understand that we have all been taught some variation of the "-isms" since we are raised in a racist, sexist, heterosexist, homophobic, classist, and able-ist, age-ist society. All these things are here, they are part of the air we breathe. It is important to know these biases, to not be afraid to look at them, and to try to embrace them in order to understand them, and then to see what we can do.
We also have to understand that exploring these issues is a journey. When you come to the table, someone may be much farther along than you in this spiral of progression, and that is okay. It is also okay for them to be angry with you, because you are not farther along or that you don't understand. That is part of your responsibility to go back, learn and understand. We need to forgive ourselves for what we don't know and then take responsibility to do something about it. We need to acknowledge that we have many more commonalities and differences than we can take in at one time.
I will close by saying that there is a huge agenda that you have to take on as an individual when you try to work constructively within your own group and outside of your group. The group shifts and the membership shifts with you. We must use our brains, hearts, and our spirits in the most creative ways possible so we can live together.