在跨文化心理治疗中发展一种探讨与衔接的模式:朝向促进认知与社会正义。

The American journal of orthopsychiatry Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-02-24 DOI:10.1037/ort0000611
Eunjung Lee, Andrea Greenblatt, Ran Hu, Marjorie Johnstone, Toula Kourgiantakis
{"title":"在跨文化心理治疗中发展一种探讨与衔接的模式:朝向促进认知与社会正义。","authors":"Eunjung Lee,&nbsp;Andrea Greenblatt,&nbsp;Ran Hu,&nbsp;Marjorie Johnstone,&nbsp;Toula Kourgiantakis","doi":"10.1037/ort0000611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Epistemic and social injustice occurs when therapists implicitly and explicitly impose personal, professional, and institutional power onto clients, and dismiss client experience which is embedded in cultural identity and social location. Despite research evidence highlighting the positive impact of broaching in cross-cultural psychotherapy, questioning the rationale and barriers to broaching is paramount. Drawing from scholarship on epistemic in/justice, we argue that the very existence of marginalization of a client in the life and in the therapy exemplifies epistemic injustice. Epistemic injustice bears two types-testimonial and hermeneutic injustice. When clients' experience of marginalization is decentered or discredited, testimonial injustice occurs. By not providing clients with opportunities to share this experience in therapy, there is little shared understanding cultivated in the cross-cultural dyad, contributing to hermeneutic injustice. Thus, epistemic in/justice requires broaching not as an option but as an integral part of therapy. Synthesizing scholarship in cultural competence, humility, intersectionality, and antioppressive practice, we define broaching as the therapist's tasks for intentional understanding of the cultural aspects and systemic oppression in the client's life-in-context. A therapist who is broaching is aware of cross-cultural similarities and differences and the workings of power in the therapy dyad and makes deliberate efforts to demonstrate this understanding to the client which includes explicit discussion in sessions. We propose pathways, dimensions, foci, and timing of ongoing broaching and bridging cross-cultural encounters in therapy. Lastly, we discuss the implications of broaching and bridging while situating this work as promoting epistemic and social justice in therapy encounters. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":409666,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of orthopsychiatry","volume":" ","pages":"322-333"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing a model of broaching and bridging in cross-cultural psychotherapy: Toward fostering epistemic and social justice.\",\"authors\":\"Eunjung Lee,&nbsp;Andrea Greenblatt,&nbsp;Ran Hu,&nbsp;Marjorie Johnstone,&nbsp;Toula Kourgiantakis\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/ort0000611\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Epistemic and social injustice occurs when therapists implicitly and explicitly impose personal, professional, and institutional power onto clients, and dismiss client experience which is embedded in cultural identity and social location. Despite research evidence highlighting the positive impact of broaching in cross-cultural psychotherapy, questioning the rationale and barriers to broaching is paramount. Drawing from scholarship on epistemic in/justice, we argue that the very existence of marginalization of a client in the life and in the therapy exemplifies epistemic injustice. Epistemic injustice bears two types-testimonial and hermeneutic injustice. When clients' experience of marginalization is decentered or discredited, testimonial injustice occurs. By not providing clients with opportunities to share this experience in therapy, there is little shared understanding cultivated in the cross-cultural dyad, contributing to hermeneutic injustice. Thus, epistemic in/justice requires broaching not as an option but as an integral part of therapy. Synthesizing scholarship in cultural competence, humility, intersectionality, and antioppressive practice, we define broaching as the therapist's tasks for intentional understanding of the cultural aspects and systemic oppression in the client's life-in-context. A therapist who is broaching is aware of cross-cultural similarities and differences and the workings of power in the therapy dyad and makes deliberate efforts to demonstrate this understanding to the client which includes explicit discussion in sessions. We propose pathways, dimensions, foci, and timing of ongoing broaching and bridging cross-cultural encounters in therapy. Lastly, we discuss the implications of broaching and bridging while situating this work as promoting epistemic and social justice in therapy encounters. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":409666,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American journal of orthopsychiatry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"322-333\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American journal of orthopsychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000611\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/2/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American journal of orthopsychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000611","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

当治疗师含蓄地或明确地将个人的、专业的和制度的权力强加给来访者,并忽视来访者在文化认同和社会位置中的经验时,就会出现认知和社会不公正。尽管研究证据强调了拉扯在跨文化心理治疗中的积极影响,但质疑拉扯的理由和障碍是至关重要的。根据关于认知正义的学术研究,我们认为,在生活和治疗中,客户被边缘化的存在是认知不公正的例证。认识论的不公正有两种类型:证言的不公正和解释性的不公正。当客户被边缘化的经历被分散或不可信时,就会发生证词不公正。由于不给来访者提供在治疗中分享这种经验的机会,在跨文化的二元关系中,很少有共同的理解,这导致了解释学的不公正。因此,认知正义需要的不是作为一种选择,而是作为治疗的一个组成部分。综合文化能力、谦逊、交叉性和反压迫实践方面的学术研究,我们将拉扯定义为治疗师的任务,即有意识地理解来访者生活中的文化方面和系统性压迫。一个正在进行疏解的治疗师会意识到跨文化的异同,以及治疗中权力的运作,并会刻意努力向来访者展示这种理解,包括在治疗过程中进行明确的讨论。我们提出了治疗中正在进行的跨文化接触的途径、维度、焦点和时机。最后,我们讨论了拉拔和桥接的含义,同时将这项工作定位为促进治疗遭遇中的认知和社会正义。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Developing a model of broaching and bridging in cross-cultural psychotherapy: Toward fostering epistemic and social justice.

Epistemic and social injustice occurs when therapists implicitly and explicitly impose personal, professional, and institutional power onto clients, and dismiss client experience which is embedded in cultural identity and social location. Despite research evidence highlighting the positive impact of broaching in cross-cultural psychotherapy, questioning the rationale and barriers to broaching is paramount. Drawing from scholarship on epistemic in/justice, we argue that the very existence of marginalization of a client in the life and in the therapy exemplifies epistemic injustice. Epistemic injustice bears two types-testimonial and hermeneutic injustice. When clients' experience of marginalization is decentered or discredited, testimonial injustice occurs. By not providing clients with opportunities to share this experience in therapy, there is little shared understanding cultivated in the cross-cultural dyad, contributing to hermeneutic injustice. Thus, epistemic in/justice requires broaching not as an option but as an integral part of therapy. Synthesizing scholarship in cultural competence, humility, intersectionality, and antioppressive practice, we define broaching as the therapist's tasks for intentional understanding of the cultural aspects and systemic oppression in the client's life-in-context. A therapist who is broaching is aware of cross-cultural similarities and differences and the workings of power in the therapy dyad and makes deliberate efforts to demonstrate this understanding to the client which includes explicit discussion in sessions. We propose pathways, dimensions, foci, and timing of ongoing broaching and bridging cross-cultural encounters in therapy. Lastly, we discuss the implications of broaching and bridging while situating this work as promoting epistemic and social justice in therapy encounters. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信