Recently I used the terms for multicultural training -explained in my last entry- in a retreat for a non-profit organization that is moving from a being ethnic to multicultural. First I explained the definition of culture so that participants understood its fluidity. We continued by looking at identity. I asked the question: what is your identity or what are your identities (i.e. what is your self-concept in process or what are your self-concepts in process)? Each person in the group had multiple answers. Then I had them analyze their answers to determine if there were any conflicts or tensions between the different identities they identified for themselves. This exercise was quite successful. Next I had them identify their belonging groups, the organization in question being one of them. This was a relatively easy exercise. I then had them move on to their worldview and pinpoint an area of belief or value where they were experiencing conflict.
I had them break into groups to discuss these internal conflicts and tensions within these three categories and to discuss the conflicts and tensions that they felt between the categories. To give an example, one person experienced a problem of professional identity that wasn’t in harmony with the social group where he felt a strong sense of belonging. Those with the same professional identity assumed he belonged in their group and enjoyed their activities while this wasn’t really the case. The social group had similar assumptions about his professional identity, refusing to take him completely serious as a member of their group.
Identity and belonging groups are less difficult categories while worldview is complicated. It is important that the facilitator clarifies the type of issues that the worldview might apply to (for instance religion or sexuality or politics or money). If not, participants will become confused. Next we looked at how identification strengthened identity, sense of belonging and worldview in their lives.
I concluded the first half of the session by explaining how language works in multicultural settings, especially how significant linguistic problems in one culture do not exist in another (for instance Indonesia has the same word (dia) for she and he which allows a lot of sexist language to be eliminated. Gender identification is less important than age differentiation.
Exploring these questions on a personal and inter-personal level makes the terminology real and practical for the participants. They become familiar with the glossary and experience a sense of ownership of terms. The really challenging part comes next: taking the glossary and applying it to the organization. First, I had them make a list of possible organizational identities (according to general members of the organization and according to those present, i.e. the leaders), followed by a determination of possible inconsistencies and overlaps. Second, we looking at sense of belonging. Here we encountered problems, because the participants had trouble seeing how belonging was impeded in the organization, how group openness was limited and how diversity impacted cohesion. Third, worldview also posed difficulty, for it was hard for the participants to boil and narrow beliefs that impacted the functioning of the organization.
The learning I took away from this particular training that the facilitator must guide the group toward specifity. When it comes to identity , he or she should try to suggest who determines these identities (e.g. outsiders, the parent organizations, stakeholders or beneficiaries or leaders). When it comes to sense of belonging, the facilitator needs to guide the discussion toward a strength-weakness analysis in belonging creation within the organization. When it comes to worldview, the facilitator should help identify belief and value categories that drive the organizations Only then can identification and language be explored fully.
0 comments:
Post a Comment