Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work.
School of Social Work.
Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2022;92(3):322-333. doi: 10.1037/ort0000611. Epub 2022 Feb 24.
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).
当治疗师将个人、专业和机构权力隐晦或直白地强加于来访者,并忽视根植于文化认同和社会地位的来访者体验时,就会出现认识和社会不公正。尽管有研究证据强调了在跨文化心理治疗中提出问题的积极影响,但质疑提出问题的理由和障碍至关重要。借鉴认识不公正方面的学术研究,我们认为,在生活和治疗中边缘化来访者的存在本身就体现了认识不公正。认识不公正包括两种类型——证词和解释不公。当来访者的边缘化经历被边缘化或被诋毁时,就会出现证词不公。如果不给来访者在治疗中分享这种经历的机会,跨文化二人组中就不会培养出多少共同的理解,从而导致解释不公。因此,提出问题不是一种选择,而是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,我们将提出问题定义为治疗师为了在治疗中有意理解客户生活背景中的文化方面和系统性压迫而进行的任务。提出问题的治疗师会意识到跨文化的相似和差异以及治疗二人组中权力的运作,并努力向客户展示这种理解,包括在治疗过程中进行明确的讨论。我们提出了在治疗中持续提出问题和跨越跨文化遭遇的途径、维度、焦点和时间。最后,我们讨论了提出问题和跨越问题的意义,同时将这项工作定位为在治疗中促进认识和社会公正。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2022 APA,保留所有权利)。