Culture Humility Essay Example

Culture Humility Essay Example Culture Humility Paper Culture Humility Paper What is the relevance of practicing cultural humility in the field of counseling? The relevance of practicing cultural humility in the field of counseling is that this practice builds trust in the counselor-client relationship, rather than the tearing down or stereotyping of that or other cultures. In helping professions it is mandatory to consider the needs of the client as well as factors that influence the clients needs or communication of needs. By practicing cultural humility in the field of counseling the ounselor understands the importance of being a life-long learner and that the continuous growing, learning, and considering the uniqueness of each individual is paramount for the counselors success. Cultural humility ensures a lifelong commitment to self-evaluation and self-critique, readdressing the power imbalances in the patient physician dynamic and to developing mutually beneficial and no paternalistic clinical and advocacy partnership with communities on behalf of the individuals and defined populations (Murray-Garcia Tervalon, 1998). Cultural humility in the field of counseling lessens the potential for cultural stereotyping. Cultural stereotyping is functioning under the belief that each culture can be defined and not taking into account the uniqueness of each individual. Different experiences in school with peers, as well as qualitative differences in how parents treat them will contribute to individual uniqueness (Sue Sue, 2008). This statement is basically conveying that not all people are the same, and not all people within a culture handle situations the same. Just because I may have the same beliefs, doesnt mean I may agree with the way things are handle within your particular household. Cultural humility allows for the counselor to act as a learner of the client and not as an expert. It allows for a counselor to seek to learn, rather than to impose their knowledge on individuals. Cultural humility comes from stepping away from the comfort zone of expert and acknowledging when we might not know what else to do (Austerlic, 2009). References Austerlic , S. (2009). Cultural humility and compassionate presence at the end of life. Retrieved from scu. edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/medical/culturally- competent-care/chronic- Murray-Garcia, J. , Tervalon , M. (1998). Cultural humility versus cultural competence: A critical distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multicultural education. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 9(2), 117-125. Sue, D. W. , Sue, D. (2008). Counseling the culturally diverse, theory and practice. 5th ed. ). Hoboken: John Wiley Sons, Inc. What is the difference between cultural competence and cultural humility? Cultural competence and cultural humility could be misunderstood to be the same, but are quite different. Cultural competence is the ensuring that ones culture is being considered, whereas cultural humility is the ongoing practices of considering ones culture, confronting self-awareness, and constantly learning about the dynamic world in which we live in. The difference in that previous statement is that with competence, you are trying to make sure that steps are taken to ensure that a particular culture is recognized, hereas with humility, it is a norm to make sure that a culture is recognized and appreciated. Cultural competence is a conceptual framework to help providers 2009). Whereas cultural humility is the practice with no foreseeable end goal but instead a paradigm of understanding that ones culture is to be considered individually; that in order to effectively consider another there must first be complete consideration of ones self. Cultural humility comes from thinking outside the box and stepping away from the the sense of normalcy to acknowledging when we might not now what else to do (Austerlic, 2009). It is a process that requires humility as individuals continually engage in self-reflection and self-critique as lifelong learners and reflective practitioners (Murray-Garcia Tervalon, 1998). Cultural humility allows the counselor the moment of intense self-reflection and to use unconventional methods to understanding and truly learning from the client as an individual. Counselors can create opportunities to communicate respect to the client by honoring the clients unique way of perceiving and interacting with the world (Nystul, 010). References Underserved, 9(2), 117-125. Nystul, M. S. (2010). Introduction to counseling, an art and science perspective. Prentice Hall. What are your reflections about the video? The video Cultural Humility by Vivian Chavez was an intriguing video to say the least. The video made me self-reflect my thoughts and brought awareness to my incompetence in cultural awareness. The video truly made me consider and respect the importance of an idea of a culture, and one must be a learner of the individual as well as the culture. To Just understand how a culture impacts an individuals life does not encompass humility. At the beginning of the video diverse people described cultural humility in one word, a few that stood out were love and compassion. These words each play a role in cultural humility. Love focuses on the learning and seeking knowledge, and compassion relates to understanding the feeling of others and treating them with this understanding. As an African American male from in an inner city neighborhood, I am familiar with discrimination, I found after viewing this ilm that I was naive to the struggles of many other individuals in this country. I grew up feeling that I was proud of where I came from, not because of what I accomplished as a child from the hood making good of himself with guidance from parents who made sure of my success, but because I always felt that no one had it as tough as I had it growing up. I grew up with a chip on my shoulder. This video made me realize how selfish and inconsiderate I was, and made me realize that I didnt have it as worse as others.

The Womans Bible and Elizabeth Cady Stanton on Genesis

The Woman's Bible and Elizabeth Cady Stanton on Genesis In 1895, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and a committee of other women published The Womans Bible. In 1888, the Church of England published its Revised Version of the Bible, the first major revision in English since the Authorized Version of 1611, better known as the King James Bible. Dissatisfied with the translation and with the failure of the committee to consult with or include Biblical scholar Julia Smith, the reviewing committee published their comments on the Bible. Their intent was to highlight the small part of the Bible that focused on women, as well as to correct Biblical interpretation which they believed was biased unfairly against women. The committee did not consist of trained Biblical scholars, but rather interested women who took both Biblical study and womens rights seriously. Their individual commentaries, usually a few paragraphs about a group of related verses, were published though they did not always agree with one another, nor did they write with the same level of scholarship or writing skill. The commentary is less valuable as strictly academic Biblical scholarship, but far more valuable as it reflected the thought of many women (and men) of the time towards religion and the Bible. It probably goes without saying that the book met with considerable criticism for its liberal view on the Bible. An Excerpt Heres one small excerpt from The Womans Bible. [from: The Womans Bible, 1895/1898, Chapter II: Comments on Genesis, pp. 20-21.] As the account of the creation in the first chapter is in harmony with science, common sense, and the experience of mankind in natural laws, the inquiry naturally arises, why should there be two contradictory accounts in the same book, of the same event? It is fair to infer that the second version, which is found in some form in the different religions of all nations, is a mere allegory, symbolizing some mysterious conception of a highly imaginative editor. The first account dignifies woman as an important factor in the creation, equal in power and glory with man. The second makes her a mere afterthought. The world in good running order without her. The only reason for her advent being the solitude of man. There is something sublime in bringing order out of chaos; light out of darkness; giving each planet its place in the solar system; oceans and lands their limits; wholly inconsistent with a petty surgical operation, to find material for the mother of the, race. It is on this allegory that all the enemies of women rest, their battering rams, to prove her. inferiority. Accepting the view that man was prior in the creation, some Scriptural writers say that as the woman was of the man, therefore, her position should be one of subjection. Grant it, then as the historical fact is reversed in our day, and the man is now of the woman, shall his place be one of subjection? The equal position declared in the first account must prove more satisfactory to both sexes; created alike in the image of God -The Heavenly Mother and Father. Thus, the Old Testament, in the beginning, proclaims the simultaneous creation of man and woman, the eternity and equality of sex; and the New Testament echoes back through the centuries the individual sovereignty of woman growing out of this natural fact. Paul, in speaking of equality as the very soul and essence of Christianity, said, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. With this recognition of the feminine element in the Godhead in the Old Testament, and this declaration of the equality of the sexes in the New, we may well wonder at the contemptible status woman occupies in the Christian Church of to-day. All the commentators and publicists writing on womans position, go through an immense amount of fine-spun metaphysical speculations, to prove her subordination in harmony with the Creators original design. It is evident that some wily writer, seeing the perfect equality of man and woman in the first chapter, felt it important for the dignity and dominion of man to effect womans subordination in some way. To do this a spirit of evil must be introduced, which at once proved itself stronger than the spirit of good, and mans supremacy was based on the downfall of all that had just been pronounced very good. This spirit of evil evidently existed before the supposed fall of man, hence woman was not the origin of sin as so often asserted. E. C. S.