Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | J | Journal of Mental Health Counseling

Multicultural counseling competencies in a pluralistic society.

Article Excerpt
Weinrach and Thomas (2002) have articulated a number of concerns raised by the proposed standards of multicultural counseling competencies (Arredondo et al., 1996). This response to their critique concludes that they have raised many legitimate ideas that need to be incorporated into the competencies, and that there is a great need for professionals to accept a common set of standards to guide best counseling practices in a pluralistic society.

**********

Weinrach and Thomas (2002) have made a courageous attempt to encourage the field of counseling to take a critical look at the proposal to have the American Counseling Association (ACA) and related entities accept the Association for Multicultural Counseling and Development (AMCD) operationalization of multicultural counseling competencies (Arredondo et al., 1996) as a standard for practice in the field. In their paper, Weinrach and Thomas correctly identified the possibility that opposition to this acceptance could be perceived as racist, oppressive, or even naive. In fact, many comments on electronic listservs that are dedicated to issues related to multicultural counseling and development have suggested that the Weinrach and Thomas's critical look represents a potential backlash against the efforts to support social justice through counseling that is part of the implicit and explicit goals of Arredondo et al. These listservs have also, and in my mind more correctly, seen the Weinrach and Thomas article as a call to clarify both the rationale for these standards, and how best to implement them. In this commentary, I identify what I consider some of the important concerns that Weinrach and Thomas raise about the standards for multicultural counseling competencies (from now on referred to as the Competencies) and suggest ways in which the mental health field can respond to these concerns in a manner that will serve diverse clients in a pluralistic society.

Weinrach and Thomas (2002) establish seven core criticisms of the competencies to which I respond. Firstly, they suggest that the competencies as articulated focus on particular ethnic minority groups to the exclusion of other factors of diversity. They then challenge the implicit suggestion that the etiology of emotional disturbance is a function of external factors (e.g., psychological oppression or disadvantaged background) rather than internal factors (e.g., biological or psychological). Their third concern is that Arredondo et al. (1996) seem to support a racial or essentialist approach in their conception of what dictates a sense of self. A fourth issue they raise is a perceived focus on particular cultural factors (i.e., race, ethnicity, and culture) and not the interaction among those factors along with other relevant cultural factors (e.g., class, gender, or differential ability). Weinrach and Thomas also express significant discomfort with many of the examples used by Arredondo et al. to explicate the competencies, suggesting that some are too simplistic and some are supportive of unfortunate stereotypes. Their sixth criticism is that the competencies impose an inappropriate level of social action onto mental health practitioners. Their seventh concern is that there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the effectiveness or efficacy of the proposed competencies. In the following pages, I comment on each of these concerns and end with suggestions for addressing them that will improve the quality of the proposed standards for multicultural counseling competencies.

EXCLUSION FACTOR

It is clear that Weinrach and Thomas (2002) are concerned that adoption of these competencies with their focus on multicultural factors (e.g. race, ethnicity, or culture) rather than diversity factors (e.g., physical or intellectual ability, sexual orientation, or age) will lead mental health professionals to ignore the latter in order to serve their professionally mandated commitment to the former. They suggest that a competent mental health professional already attends to the manner in which the Dimensions of Personal Identity (Arredondo & Glauner, 1992) affects a client, which eliminates the need to support standards for such practice. Unfortunately, the literature on multicultural counseling is replete with examples in which counselors do not address multicultural factors in either their assessment or treatment of clients (Coleman & Wampold, 2003). Within the mental health profession, there has been traditionally little attention paid to the effect of cultural...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!