Not only is cultural competence itself a suspect concept, our derivative assumptions vis a vis cultural competencies hinder our ability to recognize resources masked as incompetencies. In other words: cultural competence is the legitimization of bias.
For some, culture is a term interchangeable with race. For others, culture is a term interchangeable with a variety of factors, including socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc.
So: who is more competent to assist an LGBT couple seeking family counseling?
Anyone? Or a professional who demonstrates competence with regard to family counseling? Or someone who professes the same races, socioeconomic statuses, ages, genders, national origins, religions, marital statuses, educational attainments, sexual orientations, etc. as the individuals seeking family counseling?
What if this LGBT couple were African American? Which dimension of cultural competence would be essential for this family? Race? Sexual orientation?
What if this LGBT couple recently emigrated from Nigeria? Which dimension of cultural competence would be essential, now? National origin?
What if this LGBT couple belonged to the Catholic church? Would cultural competence for this family be defined as: Catholic, Nigerian, LGBT, and African American?
Meanwhile... why do we assume that one person who is Catholic, Nigerian, LGBT, and African American possesses the cultural competence to negotiate family therapy with another person who is Catholic, Nigerian, LGBT, and African American?
Moreover... why do we assume that one Catholic person possesses cultural competencies vis a vis all Catholic persons... or one LGBT person possesses cultural competencies vis a vis all LGBT persons... or one African American person possesses cultural competencies vis a vis all African American persons?
Aren't assumptions like these little more than -- sanctioned biases?
Isn't it possible that cultural competence is, itself, an empty term? For how can membership in any group automatically confer competence? Isn't this the real fallacy of cultural competence: our unswerving refusal to see people as people... in order to see people as labels? Not to mention, our pernicious refusal to see our very selves beyond our labels.
Imagine the resources we would have at our disposal, if we recognized the brilliance and capacity for understanding, empathy, and care, within people who do not possess the same labels as those for whom they feel compassion and kindness. Imagine if we eschewed the fallacy of label-driven bias and embraced human generosity from every quarter. Wouldn't a step like this... bring us closer to peace and equality for all... than the zealous defense of separatism?
More
I am not [fill in the blank: race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc.].
I am human. Aren't we all? I belong to the world. Don't we all? I don't belong in a box. And neither do you. For no matter how content some of us are, to flourish within our self imposed limitations, boxes irrevocably separate each of us from each other... and no membership within any group is worth the harm that ensues from entrenched separatism. No label is worth the misunderstanding and bigotry of separatism... nor is any life lost worth the zealous defense of self imposed boxes.
So: what if all of us... stopped living in our boxes...? For an hour... or a day... or a year...?
That's a future worth fighting for.
- M.
Addendum
The problem with the occupy Wall Street movement, the feminist movement, the black lives matter movement, the LGBT movement, the autism movement, etc. is the self imposed separatism that these social causes promulgate.
Ultimately, none of these movements are movements of equality, so much as they are movements of preferential bias that benefit one label over another. In the end: everyone is on the same side. When we take sides, we blind ourselves to solutions to social dilemmas that benefit everyone.
No one deserves to be marginalized. No one deserves to be disenfranchised. No one deserves to be persecuted. Yet, in our zeal to rectify social injustices, we often devise remedies to social injustices that propagate sanctioned biases, which further entrench our existing separate but equal separatism.
The solutions to social dilemmas, problems, and injustices identified by label-centric movements begin with bankrupting the social currency of labels and embracing our collective membership within the human community dedicated to enhancing the lives of everyone.
Nevertheless... as long as we maintain the delusion that labels are meaningfully empowering... and as long as we abet label-centric biases vis a vis label-centric social causes... we will continue to sabotage our efforts towards real social good.
- M.
Note
Think I'm overstating the harm of remedying social injustices with social injustices? In order to improve access to the Ivy League for some students, other students with more than appropriate (let's be honest, more than exceptional) qualifications, are denied access on the grounds of bigotry and bias. Moreover, because these students rarely incite riots and advocate violent acts, their injustices never bubble into hot topics or water cooler fodder: The Model Minority Is Losing Patience (The Economist 10/3/15).
Needless to say: haven't enough people died for the civil rights of everyone in America -- for social injustices like these separate but equal policies to be categorically antithetical to our American social values?
Sadly, any time that labels matter more than people -- social injustice is rife -- and ivory tower luminaries are no more immune from the myopia of label-centric biases than anyone else.
- M.
