write a discussion (Tu)
ffi
EI.SEVIER
Available online at wwwrciencedirect..om
-J ""''""@"'"=""
Internalional Joumat of Interculturat Retations
28 (2M4) 595412
lntcrnntio.rl lonrnat of INTERCULTURAL
RELATlONS
wvw.erseuer.com/locate/ijtutrel
Lydia Khuri +
CowL PAR 107 MC-lt8, Utbav, IL6t80t, LJSA
Abstract
As a fofin of multicultural education, _ intergroup dialogue is one melhod to improve lntergroup relations. Furlhermore, this form of experienlial education inevitably elicits emottonal responses to diversi!y and socialjustice issues. The theory and research, however, supporting its pedagogy lack a comprehensive framework for working with emotion. Recent empiricaland theoretical work on emotion in intergroup interaction giies us some guidance in conceprualizing rhe cenrraliiy and complexity of enrotional conrent and processes rn intergloup contact. Additionally, ample evidence cxists for the primacy of ;ffect in the regulation ofsocial relationships from the parcnt-
*-lel., + t2t7 26562'16 fax: +12173335850.
E ,ld,i d.'e$: [email protected].
0147-1767i$-s€e fron! mauer O 2005 Els€vier Lrd. Alt righrs reserved_
doi: I 0. l0 I 6/j.ijjntre1.2005.01.012
Working with emotion in
educational intergroup dialogue
M.
Uniuersity of linois.906 Co ese 596 M.L. Khui / hnernational Journal of Intercxltunl Relation' 28 (2004) 595412
intergroup interaction, and (4) to work uith faciliLators' affecti\€ processes. lmplications for
research are also discussed.
O 2005 Els€vier Ltd. A11 rights resened.
Kp)rdr,A IntergroLp relaLions: Emotion: Lducalion
1. Introduction
As a form of multicultural education, intergroup dialogue is one method to
improve intergroup relations. Furthermore, this form of experiential education
incvitably elicits emotional responses to diversity and socialjustice jssues. The theory
and research (Beale & Schoem,200l; Gurin, Peng, Lopez, & Nagda, 1999; Nagda &
Zt ga, 2003; Stephan & Stephan, 2001; Zuniga. & Chesler, 1993), however',
supporting its pedagogy lack a comprehensive framework for working with emotion.
Recent empirical and theoretical work on emotion in intergroup contact gives !s
some guidance in conceptualizing the centrality and complexity ofemotional content
and processes in iltergroup contact (Mackie & Smith,2002). Rather than being
unidimensioDal, these reactions reveal ambivalence, renecting positive and negative
emotions and discernable patterns toward differcnt outgroups (Fiske, Cuddy, &
Glick, 2002). Along with social psychology, other disciplines such as neuroscicncc,
dcvelopmental psychology, and clinical psychology have produced ample evidence
for the primacy of affect in the regulation of social relationships from the
parent-infant dyad to intergroup interactions (Beebe,2004; Beebe & Lachmann,
2002: Bucci & Miller, 1993; Damasio, 1999; Dovidio, Esses, Beach, & Caertner,
2002: Forgas, 2001; Leyens, Demoulin, Desert, Vaes, & Philippot, 2002; Stern,
198 5).
With a few exceptions (Stephan & Stephan, 1985), experimental work on affect in
intorgloup relations primarily focuses on assessing leactiolls to imagined or actual,
one-time laboratory encounters (Blair, Patk, & Bachelor, 2003; Djiker, 1987;
Dovidio et al., 2002; Wilder, 1993). Also with few exceptions (Stephan & Stephan,
1985; Stephan & Stephan, 1989; Tropp,2003), the literature examines the reactions
of only dominant group membcrs, for exarnple, white Ame cans to African
Americans (Dovidio et aI.,2002) hererosexual people to gay men and lesbians (B)air
et al., 2003), or Europeans to Africals (Leycns et al., 2002) or to Arabs on European
soil (Yabar, 2000 in Leycns et al., 2002). In contrast to experimental work'
intergroup dialogue involves complex dynamics within the context of structured,
sustained, face-to-face conversation among real people oldominant and subordinate
social identity groups.
Recommendations to improve intergroup contact include intervention at the
"level of emotion" (Mackie & Smith, 2002, p. 29?). Stephan and Stephan (2001)
offer a number of plejudice rcduction processes several of which focus on affective
dimensions: reducing thr€at, modifying associations between cognitions and affect'
and cleatiqg empathy. Other specific recommendations aimed at the emotional l€vel
include helping people become aware of their ncgative ernotions and to believe they M.L. Khuri / It;terMtiomt Jownat of IntetdLurut Retatiotl 28 eAA4) 5gs4r2 Sg.j
mlght succeed in these interactiotrs. people also need enough cognitive resources not to be overwhelmed by situational demands (Leyens "t .1" ZOOij.^altfr"rgh jt does not focus systematicaily on the affective Iuy"., int".g.olrf i;ffi"r, pf,lloropfry unO structure prime the gound to do so.
. _-To address this absence, I- propose a set of guiderines to work with emotron in lntergroup.dialogue that would provide ways (rjto foster overal po.iiiu" ,rrrerg.oup contact, (2) to work effectively with negative affect and resistance as integrar and not
:ill."^].!" to positive intergroup rnteractions, (3) to attend to the force that amorvatence exerts on lntergroup interaction, and (4) to work with facilitators,
;ll:ffi JT;::#J\i,'i:ft :i'ff
,i:::':"J: jih-.fi "T;n:".,'t;iul principles and techniques, of course, inform """h orh;;;;J";; o"nil" urtn"iutty separated The latter is deserving ofand jtras received more a"ultJ-"iuio.utior, (s"" Adams, Belt, & Griffin, 1997; Ztnisa & Chesler, 199r. A t;;a;;;vrew of the contexts that shaped these principles is followed by u'a".".lfiion of ,n,"rgroup dialogue,. a discussion of emotion, and rhen the guidelines. flrify, i*,rr oaar"r, research impiications.
2. Contexts for development of principles
The, case for developing these guidelines in working with emotion resrs upon several factors: claims made in the literature on intergr"oup Ji"t"ogu"-ii", ,orhng with feelings is-a core component of this rype of education; riry own year.s of
:ll.]1._:::, ": i fl"]tita.ror of intergrou!, dialogue; the resear.ch titerature addressing .ne central role ol altect in intergroup contact; and nry training and work as a
ry:!,h*:pi" Atthough.these. principles are embejded wir"hin a parncutar peoagogy, they may be useful in other contexts focusing upon intergroup exploration (see Stephan & Stephan, 2001, for a complete review of ,nJael, to improvc lntergroup relations).
Addilionally, these principres are in response to an abselce in rrre riterat.,re regarding working with affect in improving intergroup relations. Upon hearing a prevrous vercion of this paper, a colleague in the neld of intergioup relatiols commented that he found tiis material on working with affeci complex and generally lollowed his intuition when it came to dealing with emotions in the classroom. Although many educators are indeed gifted facilitators atd naturally capable of working with a range of affective expressions and processes, one s own u'rtuition does not give one all the skills and conceptual foundations to work with complex affective processes. Several barriers, however, prevent a more thorough approach to developing comp€tencies in working with affict in educational settings. At the institutional level, emotion (as lived experience informing scholarship, notjust a subject of study) is not emphasized in academic training. Adaitionally, a lack of a conceptual framework may leave educators at a loss as to how best to aoproach what may feel too per.sonal or non-intellect ual. On a psychoJogical level. it may perhaps be the case that people in general do not like to be told that they require more spccific I M.L. nuri / Internatianat Jaunlat of hx.rcuttumt Retarias 28 (2004) 595412
tning in understanding and expressing emotion because of the assertion that totlon ls common experience and therefore common knowledge. In conlrasq
:ilitators who consider themselves unique in their intuitive and/or emorronal
ilities may not want to subject them to inquiry and elaboration because it
nrystifies those abilities and may threaten a sense of specialness. Finally, working
th emotions requires emotional self-scrutiny and awareness. Given the inter_
rsonal lature of this work such exploration occurs most often with the help of hers. This process of interpersonal self-rcflection may make one feel uncomfor_
ble, vullerable, or ordinaly.
These guidelines draw from the several disciplines mentioned above but also trotn ntenporaty theodes of psychodynamic psychotherapy. This may come a$ a lprise, but no other disciplinc has as robust theoies of practice as it pertains to )rking with emotion in sustained, face-to-lacc contact, A caveat is in ol.der that any may antlcipate: psychothefapy mainly offers theories of intrapsychlc and terpelsonal processes. Yet, intrapsychic, interpersonal. anrl intelgroup ievels can seen as parts ofa systcm that penetrate and influcnce each other. These guidelines,
erefore, are meant to serve in a holistic way, that is, to facilitate working with lect in herc-and-now intergroup conlact while lqaving room for diffefentiatjnc the ufccs of dffectivc responses.
Intergroup dialogue
Intergloup dialogue is a form of intentional. small group engagement (Schoemr
urtado, Sevig, Chesler, & Sumida, 2001) based on the democratic principle of
ared and equal p4rticipation in civic processes (Marger, 1999). In the UDjtcd
atcs, it is an increasingly popuiar, structured, face-to-face forun: for broadly
.dressing cultural id€ntity, intcrgroup conflict, and structural inequalitv or lor
.dressing specilic problcms which particular groups or co,nmuniiies nray face
chocm et al., 2001). Succcssful interactions rcst, in pad, on the general principles
the rntelgroup contact hypothesis: equal status bctween groups; sustained and
Lrmate contact amorg participants; opportunities for authentic relationships;
pport fiom lelevant authority figures; and common, overarching goals (Allport,
79; Pettigrcw & Tropp,2000; Stephan & Stephan,200l; Zuniga & Chesler, 1993).
The model in higher cducation explicitly emphasizes the following goals: (l)
ploring intergroup similarities and differcnces; (2) exploring histodcal and
ntemporary conflicts; (3) linking individual expedences to social group expericnccs
thin the context of stluctural inequality, and (4) examining ways to movc flon1
ogue lo empowerm€nt and action (Chesler, 2001; Gurin et al., 1999; Thompson, 'ett, & Behling, 2001; Zuniga & Nagda, 1993). It differs from rmditional and even
)n other forms of multicultural education because it acknowledses the Dositive
lc ofaffective expression and conflict (Nagda & Zuniga.2003; Step"han & Siephan,
01; Thompson et a1.,2001). Although scholarly and popular readings provide
nceptual framewotks and current, controversial topics (Zuniga & Cyton-Walker,
03), participants leam primarily throrgh facilitated, phase-specific, pcrsonal M.L. Kuri / Internationat Jou at of Interdhurat Retatio s 2A (2004) 5g54t2 ag9
sharing. Two people, oire lrom each social group, co_facilitate, and participant numbers are balanced wirh an ideal_rotal ,of_ l6 iNa;;a, Zunigu, A'S"uig, 1995). For example, an African American and Jews dElogue would have one Afr.ican Ameucan and one.Jewish facilitator with equal numbers of participants fi.om each group. Courses last anywhere from 12 to 25 contact hours.
There are, however, less explicit goals itr intergroup dialogue. participants do not elgage in dialogue only to gain knowledge or advocate for s-ocial change. Atthough these. are key goals, I posit that they move into and through diaffie atso ror emotional reasons: to engage in an endeavor where the firndameital feeiings uxderlying community-.,concern, trust,.respect, appreciation, affection, and hope,, (Burbules, 1993, p. 4lfmay be expe enced. In a very broad way, these three goals-knowiedge, action, and community__form the matrix for democratic engagement (Burbules, 1993; Nussbaum, 2001). Community here is nor meanr ro imply a^utopian sameness (young, 1990 in- Burbules, lfff; but to lncomfass varyrng levels of concern for others across and within or_.rr diff"r"n..".
- -----"''
To achicve_ these goals, intergroup dialogue requires collaborative self-reflection on aspects of self, others, and world. Thosc who seek intergroup dialogue often overtly wish to learn or share-with.an emphasis on cognitive indei.sta-naing_rvllat makes themselves or others tick ar'd ro learn how to m;ke things different. We are beginnin^g more fully to understand, nonerheless, how necessary i is to fay attcntion to the affective realm. participants are motivated to .ng"g" in "o*rn'uiity unC to experience those feelings, as noted above, associated with community. Thrs process, however, of learning about self and others acrivates distrcssin! "ri.li'o, it'"r,"ri"ng", deeply hcld and unexamined views.
Several guidelines support effectivc management of this process: tlte need to build trustj a particular facilitative attitude, including empathy: a developmental, phase- specilic framcwork; facilitatoN, emotional self-regulation; and the idca that intcllectual undelstanding is not enough for optiiral leurning anJ change. In addition to these five principles, intergroup dialogue practice must account for the tensions inhercnt in work that crcates spaces for jarticipants to challenge and potentially change their fundamental worldviews. Before movilg on to addressing the ethical and psychological tensions in intergroup dialogue i.nd guidelines for working with emotion, I would like to take a short detour tJestablish-why ernotion is so fundamental to human interaction.
4. Emotion
Drawing on an incredible range of tesearch, the philosopher, Martha Nussbaum,
notes that "emotion helps us sort out the relationship between ourselves and the world" (Nussbaum, 2001, p. ll8)- It involves not only cognitive_evaluative,
corlsclous processes but also non-verbal biological (Damasio, 1999) an
symbolic processes (Bucci & Miller, 1993). The neuroscientist, Antonio Damasio
argues, "There is..- no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelines. and much to suggest that we arc not" (p_ 36). Neither a feeling state nor an emoti-on mav have 600 M.L. Khuri / lnkmatiotat Joumal of rntera&Dat Retationx 28 e\Aq S9s4r2
been "in consciousness, and yet they lave been unfolding as biological processes,, O. 36). At its most basic, emotion is central to survival on the level of bodily integdty: emotional responses alert the orgarusm to flee, figfrr, ". .ppr").f, _ pl"y, sex,.or.rurturance (Damasio, r999). In addition to tre neu;rogicar ievei, non-verbal symtolic processes (Bucci & Miller, 1993) occur as ..."rtd p;;;;; i;'ony ."nro.y modality," not just visual (Damasio, 1999, p. 9). These three f.o"".r"., ,n" biological, or the subsymbolic, the non_verbai syrnuot;c, ana,t.;;r;;i link up to varying degrees in human b€ings to create patterns of emotionar expedence, communlcatlon, and action.
Emotion-has a dynamic quality since it hglps us determine what is relevant to our own flourishing from moment to moment and over the span of our Iives. However, this dynamic aspect.is not arbitrary: rather. emotional pai,"rn. ur. our,i, hardwired ano paJ.) rooted ln our experiences of infancy and chirdhood as members oI particular culturar groups (Damasio, 1999; Nuss6aum, 2001). Emoii,on atso tras a discriminaring quality because it hetps us determine wh;.. *;"t i, i;o;unt to our own rlourrsnlng ln the context ofdiffercnt types ofrelationship, from the lnttmate to
!1".ib":".1
(Nussbuum. 200 | ). Research on peopte with damlg. io ourii"r,ur. .r"u, or tne bratn reveals intacr cognitive functioning but an absence of emotronal
:19^.9-:T.,ll: Ar 1 result,.ir is if rh€y became derached observers unabie to prioritize wno or what matters and were subsequently unable to take action (Damasio, 1999).
. This model suggests that intervening at the tevel ofemotion murii""u, "ot orly ", the vetbal-cognitive level. It must consider how to set up conditions ttrat are conducive to helping participants to access and co-muni"ate tfrei, fiivat" feefing experiences, whcther interpersonal or lntergroup, and of which they may or may nor be aware. contrary to what it may sound like, this effort would neithJr aoo to the aiready complex array of lacilitator tasks nor subtract from the goals oi inrergroup dialogue. Rather, if one thinks of the curriculum wlth lts reaai"ngs, aJiu,tres, and othertasks as in the foreground, one can think ofpreparing for anJworking with the affective layer as in the background. Additionally, i*o pii-ury t"nrion. ,"g"roing change, one psychological, the other ethical, prompt the need ior a weil-ar trculated model of working with affect.
5. Tensions regarding change
Intergroup dialogue operates within two tensions, one ethical and the other psychological. Its ethical t€nsion stems from philosophical underpinnings: inter- group dialogue holds education as a practice of liberation, requires questioning the given, and in questioning the given, supports conscrous consideration of how one lives in relation to self, others, and the world (Freire, 2002119.10; Zuniga & Nagda, 1993). At the same time, this practice is biased toward particular theoriJs as to what leads to and what constitutes a frcer and morejust society (see Schoem et a1.,2001). In essence, we as educators must justify our work as it relates to engaging others in processes of change when we know that they entail distress and lh-attenee the sta(u5 quo. M. L. Khuri / InteDutiDnat .rounut of Inkrdhwat Retations 2A (2004 ) 595412 601
^"I*::::^r1
,::r.n is psychological and concems ambivalcnce. Or tue one hand, partlcrpants are drawn toward wanting.to learn about and relate m-ore autfr"nti"ally to s€tf and others. on thc other, participanrs .." p"ilJ i;-;;;i;J"i." ,n ."t ot i, already thought to be known and oiedict.'u1", ,rr"i;ri"r", """riii i"r"rr_u"rg. fn tr," context of intergroup rerations, some of these ri-ri"til*'*lil'a,rrl, depenoing on whether one is a member of the dominant or subordinarf "r;;;.
'' "
As fi.amed by the educational philosopher *J'"",1"j.i-tf*i* (zo[zltg.lo), members of both dominant and subordinaie g."ro. *ifi l"-tfrriin"gea to sce the
:ll* i. hlT:" and n€eded, ruther than a. iohu-ao uoa ,"J"",-"0, in?" pro1""t or becoming fully, consciously human. For examptc, rn".y o,h;;;;pf" in the United States, who have, as a whole, been- trained to see themselves as supctror, will
r:ffi ff ;"#1 TJ;::';'"ff '."-:l"f:i -in the' socia I p'v"i or o gv I i'"*'*" ^
1co"'.to". r-oouioi;, ;ffi) ;:;#,':'fln'"#l.f:i:ilj'J]ii:lJi|J:].i"1::
dissonance as they are asked to .cortsider the domin"ant
.g.ouf
ir
't
u_un fit" thcmselves. This conflicts with the kind ofai.a^i, ti"irnJru"?r-o?"op|."r."0 group,
:ii"j l1y" toward those in oppressrve groups and which rests on an odd kind of ln mate knowledge of thosc groups with greater power. lvltnclng the flrst ethical tension.would help educators conscientiously attend to the.sulfering and hope of both dominant ""a ,',,f"rAr"i" er""f.ir"U.'r, "ro ," ,f," challenge of alrering one's worldview.. n".".u"ii"g- ii" .-""ini"pry"rlorogi"or tension _would help us not blindly invest in one side of the affective equaton or te other. we would neither be naively invested in " I"";;;;;;_;i'lientarity nor caught up in the despair of intract;bte connict and ilGffi;;;;"at, hatued, delegitimitization, disdain, distancing, ana aelumanization.-wi i, ."""gnirron .r,r,i, balancing act, we can now move onto examining,orn" guia.tin", ior"*orking with emotlon.
6. Five guidelines
^ The five following guidelines are not exhaustive but constitute the beginning of a framework for working with affcct. Osrcnsibly orhcrs co"iJ'u" a"""1"p"5. rfr"v "fm presuppose facilitators'active, behavioral engagement such as initiaring ana catrying through on tasks, facilitating acrivities in appropriate and rimely wayi sensitivity to facilitator roJe, and mindfulness of quauy ano purpose ot verbal intenentlons.
6.l. Ttust
, Before participanrs in intergroup dialogue arc willing lo open up and allow u)ernsetves to conlront their worldvicws. thcy must have some sense that the facilitators (and peers) arc trust-worthy, that is, will ".t U" a""*""irg,lndillerent,
ll--i:*tjiatl but.will be accepring, undersranding, and authentic.
-fuany
social Jr]slrce educators {Adams er al., lg97: Nagda & Zuniga. 2003; Zuniga & Chesler, 1993) address how to establish a ..safe.' atmospher"
-H;*"".r,
,;i;;Dect of the 602 M.L. Klwi / Inte ational .loumat of Inlercuttuat Retations 2A (2AA4) j95412
course tends to receive attention only at the begiruring. Facilitators, particularly
inexperienced ones, may expect participants to jump into high_risk conversations.
Additionally, facilitators may ask participants to jump in. as a rvay to expose what
they, the padicipants, do not know. Either move can be rnotivated by a faciJilator
striving for pow€r based on a teacher/student hierarchy, lack of experience, or by a
lack of appreciation for the role that thrcat plays in such situations (Stephan &
Renfro, 2002). One example is of having subordinate group members talk about
their expedences of discrimination or prejudice. Another example is of having
dominant group members talk about the privileges of being in the dominanr group.
Wren the timing is right, both types of conversation are often empowering for
subordinate group members and profoundly eye-opening for dominant group
members. When the timing is wrong, participants may feel exposed or used.
Focusing too early on what participants are reticcnt to share, arc ivoidirrg, or ale
unaware of without the base of a trusting relationship cannot only be taken as
criticism but can also be confusing and can communicate that the facilitators are the
arbitefs of rcality (Newman, 1999). Without a trusting rclationship thcse types of
discussion can lead to umupported, negative affective expeiences and a breakdown
m engagement through withdrawal or attack.
The issue of trust and safety must always be in the foreground and reconsidered in
light of how the dialogue progrcsscs. Saying something is safe does not maKe l[ so (Hooks, 1994). Mistrust and anxiety about the process often leads to what
facilitators perceive as "resistance" from studenrs. Raiher, reconceptualizing this so-
called resistance from the participants' perspective does not lead us to back off fio11r
difflcult questions, but to hold their trepidation and ambivalence in mind as we move
into new terrairl, In other words, the main function ofresistance is not to ftustrate us
educators. Rather, it is self-prcserying and helps to regulate affective equilibrium.
Two scenarios respectively illustrate unsuccesslul and successful trust-building. In
a people of color and white people dialogue, my co-facilitator and I allowed the
students to dive into discussing conflictual issues too early in the process. We did not
promote and follow through with activities meant to build trust through low-dsk
explor4tion of self and others. As a lesult, the students, initially eager to ,,get into
it," backed off from engaging with each other for another couple of weeks and
secmed not to develop a level of trust in which thcy could share of themselves and
tolerate a nrore thorough arld active exploration of difference and conflict.
Similarly, in an Arubs atd Jews dialogue, which included non-Arabs and non-
Jews, students were eager to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Khuri, 2004), but
my co-facilitator and I held off such a discussion unril the third phase of the course.
Our focus on building trust in the begioning allowed the students to stay engaged
when conflicts in their worldviews and feelings of anger and frustration emerged
ght there in the classroom. We established and maintained trust in several ways.
One was by providing a predictable structure, clear expectations, and specific content
matedal. The second method included many activities allowing students to express
their concerns and viewpoints and to really learn about who was in the room with
them in a non-judgmental environment. These activities were also designed to
move from low-risk to high-risk revelation. Third, we establishcd the atmosphere of M.L. Khurt / rntemationat Joumat of rnterathutat Retation,- 28 (2A0q Sgsaj) 603
norl-judgment not simply by declaring it so, but by a jng on our genuin€ stance oi. cunosrty and acceptance, which required empathy and Jur abjttl to rnonug" ou. own emohons. This.espectful, facilitative stance suppoded both th; contmuahon ot a trusting relationship and working with what is oiGn ""ll"d,;r;;;;;;.
6.2. Facilitator attitude and empathy
Broadly, a facilitator's attitude of genuine understanding, rcspectful cu osity, willingness to enga-qe on the affective levcl, and th" "o"o;iu;;;;;; of.hon".,y, saying what comes to mind, and suspension of judgment "if
"rort
;, concelr ro support the dimcult task of exptomtion (Burbulis, i993; Kohut, l9g4; Newman, 1999; Rogers, 1989; Sands, 2000; Eltinor & Gerarj, tf$. ffiis iu"iiitottu" ,turr"" links with empathy. For in order to_effectively faciliratc ,ira"n,r.-"*fiorutionr, *" need to hone in on the issues from their perspecrive, to know tlle woi:kings of their schemas, their logic, their expe ences.
_ ^In.psychotherapy, empathy is a tool, a process, and is potentially curative (Wispe, 1987). As a process or tool, it is a mod,e of feeknj uzro anot subjective cxperiencc, line-tuning the adiculation of that oiher,s
"experience
in cottaUoration with the other, and at the same tinv rccognizing that one is a s"palut" leing fiom tt c
3,]:]_:l."r:"t:b{::live lifeone.is rrying- accurarety to apperceive (Nussbaum,200lj Kogers, -19lJ rn Wrspe. 1987; Wispe, l9g7). Regarding the curative element, being a-ccurately unde$tood provides a .,powerful emoti;al bond between peoplc,, (Kohut, _1984, as cited in Wispe, lggt) and, as such, is on" "f","*i of uutf,orti" relationship (Reid, personal communication, January 26, Z0Oa1. Empaihy rs not a lceling one. has loward another person. Nor does empathy'gua;t;e accurate unoersBncrng. Rather, lt ls a relational stance in which one rcconsrruc[s imaginatively another person's experience without evaluation and without regard t_o.. whethcl the expclience is joyful or sad (Nussbaum, 2001; Rogers as cited in Wispe, 1987).
. . Emp^athy. as defined in the intergroup relations field rnore closely tracks with the idea of feeling compassion for another and/or being movea to piosociai Ueiiavilr based on taking that other person's persp€ctive (Stephan & Fintay, 1999: Stephan & Stephan, 2001). Empathic processes, nonetheless, underlie these abilities although empathy does not guarantee either: a todurer can feel his way into his victim,s subjective states only to enjoy the latter,s suffcring. (Kohut, l9gl, as cited in Nussbaum.200l).
Two other facets of empathy arc crucial to its use in intergroup dialogue. First, empathy must be considered within a cross-cultural ftamework_ Althoush I do not
know ofany empirical rcsearch addressing this, the question arises as ro how difficult
is it to empathize with another the further away one is from the other,s customs and
experiences (Kohut, 1959, 1971 in Wispe, 1987). Moreover, are different social
groups more given to exercising empathy than are others? AlthoDgh the intergroup
dialogue literaturc has not frained the problem this way, the practic€ of having ,.,,.]]|:ll
facilitators of the different cultural groups in the dialogue potentially increases the : ,. ' .,:'rl
facilitative function, or the participants' perception ofempathy, within the dialogueil - -,r,.i,;,,1,;.1
":,:.!!;'.t1;:,
",1 '.lii M.L. Khuri / hienlalional Jomal of hterdLurat Retatio,ts 28 (2004) Sg54t2
shod time frame. The second facet entaiis considerirg how facilitators use empathy versus how we encourage students to use empathy. Social psychologists suggest a nrlmber of empathy building techniques as a way to i-p.ou" int"rgio,rp .Ju-tioo, ,l (Stephan & Finley, 1997). The facilitators, use ofempathy may more closeJy parallel ,
a therapist's us€ in that he or she must be more consistently attuned to complex.:
psychological phenomena throughout the whoie p.ocess. participants' use of l €mpathy must be considercd within a dcvelopmental framework. We cannot
rcalistically expect them to have empathy for each othcr without considenng also
thcir general developmental positions, what stage they may occupy in terms oi their
cultural idcntity development (Helms, 1993), the extent of their social srouo l
identification, and/or their particular group,s status vis-d-vis the outgroup (Fiske
et al., 2002).
In a men and women dialogue, a female facilitator rcacted harshiy to a male:l participunt who espoused vicws she found personally offcnsive. She acknowlcdged '
wanting to use her knowledge to dominate him, yet, in doing so, cnded up engaging ;
ln a power slruggle with him that did not allow him thc prospect to explor.e his views.
with his classmates. Her loss ofan empathic stance, which does not enaail agreemenr.
curtailed thc opportunity for the whole class to engage with this particular student's
views in constructive ways. In another men and women dialoeue. a male student
made provocdri\e stateDents about women's proper place as to suggesl that he
enjoyed the role of class clown. The facilitators did not dismiss his vicws bur inr,ired i
him to elaborate on them without the hidden agcnda of exposing bim. He did nbtl
radically alter his views but he did stop derailing the dialogue and allowcd hjmsef t6'
engage as one participant with a valid voice among many. Maintaining this empathio
stance requires lacilitators to be able to regulate their own emotioDs. .,,.
6.3. Facilintors' self-reoulation l
On the whole, teachels' emotional expericnces do not seem to be a major topic o1
education research (Beatty, 2002) although educatofs' emotional responses havg
been addressed in some social justice education literature (Adams et al., 1997). In
contrast, contemporary psychoanalytic literatule has quite extensively address€d,
therapists' general emotional processes including specific proccsses around the topics,
of race and sexual orientation (Altman, 1995; Creenc, 1986, 1994; Leary, 1991; de
Monteflores, 1994: Pinderhughes, 1989). A few ernpirical studics have shown that th(
therapist's emotional well-being has important implications for treatment IButter
Flasher, & Strupp, 1993). On the whole, however, I suggest thar intergroup dialogur
has underestimated the offects of facilitators' emotional processes. It is not difficul
to imagine that facilitators' emotional states and responses would influence the
dialogue and that the dialogue would influence facilitators' emotional processes. A,s
noted above, facilitators' q,illingness to engage on the affective level supporr
facilitating others' exploration. This engagement may look diiferently for facilitator
with different types of personalities and cultural backgrounds and may or may n!
entail ditect self-disclosure of emotional rcsponses. The point is not to linit ho$/
fucilitatots engage but rather ro support emotional presence. rl
I
M_L Khuri / lnter@tionat Joltmat of latercuhhat Retatio6 28 (2004 ) 5g,4t ) 605
Additionally, facilitators must be open to being affected, for example, feeling
compassion, angerr or even confusion. This openness, however, retlurres.a
paradoxical stance. Facilitato6 have to be able to be emotionally presenr and
engaged and, at th€ same time, be contained. Perhaps not to the degree required of
therapists, facilitaton have "to be there and not be there at the samc time', (Russell.
1998 in Stechl€r, 2003, p. 711). What he or she does with these emotional experiences
is crucial. For example, becoming frustrated, losing patience, blaming thc group or
individuals within the group for not "getting it" or..putting it out there', ale typical
facilitator responses to typical, difficult or not so dimcult phases in intergroup
dialogue. We all feel these at times. We may be triggered in such a way that leads us
to seize upon one idea as if it would magically unlock tbe dialogue impasse. We may
blame the participants. If only this student would stop denying that oppressron
exists. If only this student would stop talking or this other start talking. If only this
social group would stop taking care of the other social group. Such wishing is
understandable. In the face of such moments of frustrution or helplessness, wishing
seems like a feasible response when one feels as though one can do nothing. In those
moments, a facilitator may lose the scnse of what is actually feasible. He or she may
become overwhelmcd, give up, withdraw, get into power struggles, dominate, or "teach" instead offacilitate. As a result, participants may pick up on tbe facilitators'
emotional needs and ways of relating. They may fall in line with a more politically
correct way ofconceiving cultural identity, fear revealing their own subjectivities, or.
become disengage.
Becoming aware of arld managing one's own emotions during dialogue sessions is
perhaps one of the most difficult tasks of a facilitator. Emotional pattems are so
doeply rooted plior to adulthood, and often out of conscious awareness, that
facilitators vary widely in what emotional skills they bring to their work.
Nonetheless, facilitators can be supported in and outside of the classroom. Being
abie to self-regulat€ during the sessions requires support and work outside of
facilitating dialogue. Personal self-rcflection, for example in the form ofjournaling,
and group discussion or supervision provides structured opportunitjes to examine
reactions to the dialogue. In addition, permission, as it were, to have emotional
responses, helps counteract the tendency to suppress such responses in the name of
neutrality, Attention to one's tone, direction of inquiry, too great or too little focus
on a particular topic or student, and timing and purpose ofself-disclosure, may all be
used to alert facilitators to thei! emotional proc€sses as they occur in the dialogue.
From this self-awareness, facilitators may adjust any number of ways in which they
are engaging with participants.
In an example from group supewision, a white, female student facilitator became
upset about the views of several African American female participants regarding
African American men datirg white womerr. This facilitator had just broken up with
her African American boyfriend. I suggested she address her feelings on both
accoults, the personal loss and feeling attacked, and then suggested she also consider
a broader social context in which some African American womelr may feel the way
they do. At that point, the other supervisees empathically engaged in the
conversation acknorvledging both the facilitator's feelings and the views of the
I M.L. Kltui / Inteurational Joumat of lhtenttturut Retatiotu 28 e0A4) 595412
African American women in the dialogue. The opportunity to explore her own
reactions outside the dialogue allowed the facilitator to regain a more emparnrc
stance when she retumed to the actual dialogue.
6.4. Deuelopmental, phase-specif.c tasks
Intergroup dialogue uses a four-stagc model to guide students' Iearning (Nagda &
Z;.lniga, 2003; Thompson et al., 2001; Zlniga & Nagda, t993; Zuniga & Nagda,
2001). Although the literature does not directly link the sequencing of phases with
the students'affective needs and capacities, the pedagogy inherently supports their
unfolding. Training in intergroup dialogue facilitation, in fact, often turns to models
in group psychotherapy to conceptualize group development and facilitators, tasks
(Alamo, 2002). Yalom's (1995) model, for example, clearly conveys tbe affective
tenor of the processes particular to group formation in his stages of o entation and
dependency; conflict, dominance, and rebellion; and the development of cohesion.
The nlst stage ofintergroup dialogue focuses on building trusiand issues ofgroup
formation. Through discussion and structured activities students addrcss such
conccrns as their hopes and fears about engaging in cross-group dialogue. The
second stage in intergroup dialogue highlights group similarities and differ.ences by
inviting students to share their peNonal experiences ofbeing a porsou of a particular
background, espccially as it rclates to growing up. This stage often sees a qurer awe
as students listen to each other rclate experiences far from their own and iinks with
empathy building so crucial to improving intergroup relations (Stephan & Stephan,
2001), The third stage engages students in exploring areas and topics around which
the two gloups arc in conffict. For example, a dialogue betwecn gay, Iesbian, bisexual
students and heterosexual students may address the issues of marriage, religious
ordination, or adoption. Affect tends to be heightened during this third phase and
studcnts may begin to reveal feelings ofambivalence or hopelessness and helplessness
in the face of social injustices, The fourth stage asks studcnts to consider the
implications of their learning on issues of social justice (Thompson et al., 2001) or to
consider ways of "challenging injustices" (Nagda & Zuniga.,2003, p. l16) through
identifying concrete actions taken individually or through coalition building. This
fourth stage may see relie! a return to hope, a more measured stance toward social
injusticcs and change as opposed to naive hope or hopelessness, a pelsistence of
anger, and even some sadness in the face of ending the group expeiencc.
Tllis developmental framework is, in my opinion, one of intergroup dialogue's
greatest strengths. A morc dcliberate consideration of affective processes throughout
all four stages, however, has the potential to help educators rlot be caught off guard
by eruptions of heightened affect, the lack of affect, the vadety of affective
responses, or by different forms ofresistance that may appear in later stages but have
their roots in unresolv€d affective colcerns from earlier stages or may simply reflect
ambivalence. Additionally, the greater knowledge facilitators have of group
development, the less they will be anxious or confused about the path each group
may take (Yalom, 1995). M.L. Ktluri / Intemati@at roumat oI Intentuurat Rctatnrns 28 (2004) 5954t2 60l
6. 5. Inte(Jratian oersus intelleclwtt2ation
"r:fi'#,;ffii:'ffil"T:1;l"l;:*y' that prejudice mav be more cosnitivery or
uotr, inteig.o,,f uiri;; ;ffi"h"ilil"l,Tf#i
"1,%J!;1.,ii
:m*,';:;1i: avareness of.inequality and espousal or.a"_o".u,i" uulu..ir;;;;;"" them from Ieelrng or acting in aversive wavs toward members of ",lUorainut" g.o;p, (Gaertner
f"?ili.ff;,,1,'#;iif}1:"f":1"""i::r :'orr r"i".e."'p"iiilr"'l'i,1""'.ur", ,n"
of the ivo t."il;;;il;ilc:^rlflrcts
as thev a'ise rigltt there between members
s,"pr,.'', xio rl. iii, ;.;;;;,#;fi':Jrfi::'i.."i""".,11i:,; j}r::[j:,(*T,.Xll*
lntegration rcfers to building cor and verbal concepts as a"noon"lo"lttott letween non-verbal emotioual processes
"og.tiu", rnt.ii""iuu';;;;;: ;;1,il:;";,!lll,l'; lHilX;:" ;t'.i:j*,iii * oren occurs as a response to dilnculty.in ."1-r.*f "agi"g-""J'ia##ring "n,o,,oru
['il:I"t,ffJ":l"'iJ,i',#'j:i::',:':rT? i';'i;; i;;."]l,iiilii",.'',",,".,
;ySessrurrr' aone so';-':;ilJilrt1ru,'i$i1i: l'ffiij ffTT'J,H: racrlrra.tors rely- on experience, intuition, and pe.sonat juagrn; ; i"r".,n,o" *n...
:","li:ij'.ii, falr afgne fe.continuy,n rrar'ro1n1,-1ir"ir,ir"r.,'i,i"i"i,"*,"r ,r,'i, lssue ls to suggest that facilitators
:lpacity ror iii"g,uti;i t i;;;;;gT.1*,1'.";ij'T#T::,ll':,,,;:::;,il.:;:Xl
engagement. We as educators ma! ten-ae-ncy to either-in;il;;;J,L:l hlve a sTa.t deal of impact on students'
tendencies to b€gin with. *o, ""n
tnt"tt"t" materiai sincc they come in with these
resources ro manage the o.*;;;J""iT;i".rff',fi:"H:ij:_,ni'tl"iT':l
Invrronmcnr ttrar supports movement to*u.J int.grorion .rii"''ri"n ,.lnror"., r nre]lectua lization. Addirionally. because intergroup" OI"f"rr"
'"ir" 'i,",
a didactic c!ntponent, students. mastery of the concepts may mask their affectivc experrences. we may mjss thjs phenomcnon for t
,Esonate with our own ideorogica, #l,jilXXT;llilriT::::*"3"1"n fi1*"1 limited timeframe may blind ui to students, int"tt""iuuti"'utioil'
- '" """
_-Discusions focused on readings and otf,". fo._, oi"ont*t presentatjon tend to ptomote access to cognitive processing, whereas activities spec;n""ffy u.ting ,ruo"oO to rcll€ct on their personal experiery
anectrue "onsia"raii;;. ;;;;;;#:]n
or outside of the dialogue promote more
3a,911'r" "y"1,iffi ; ;; ;fi,:ili"'J i##:lTi.'H;;::'Jiil:i:1J.fi H; the lntergtoup levels.
7. Conclusion
The alfective layer of intergrotD d
u",r' ,n",i""ii"""r'";i;";;fi;;il$1:,i:, n'' ". bv .p':qucr or ensasernent but
rrisproroundryinnu"";;J;;;';;.tfi H;;"J:tff ,:T,l:-j]l:"Jni:iJif"[:J".j 608 M. L. Kl1uri I Intematioial Journal of Intercultural Retation]J 28 (2004 ) jg54\2
at times, facilitators' awareness. Additionally, students vary in thcir capacity to link
€motion and cognition, a factor that we cannot conhol. Students, abilitv-
nonetheless, to engage in dialogue on typically taboo subjects does not tum #
any one particular activity, interpretation, inteNention, or piece of information.
Facilitating intergroup dialogue is partly an art based on experience and on "creativity, spontan€ity, [and] intuition" (Lichtenberg, Lachmann, & Fosshage,
1996, p. 88) but also requires us to have particular theorctical and empirical
knowledge bases. Adding knowledge and skills in working with affcctive processes
enhances the dialogue quality in subtle but important ways. Affective engagemenl
that is the process by which we come to understand who and what is important to
our goals and projects (Nussbaum, 2001), whether on an individual or group level, is
the relational matrix in which students crcate rrew levcls of understanding, ways of
relating, and ways of taking action in the world (Gurin, Nagda, & Zuniga, 2004).
For the most part, this paper has focused on principles of working with affect and
Iess so on specific techniques, although the latter is deserving of more detailed
elaboration. Principles and techniques, or coursc, inform cach ot-her and can only be
artinci.rlly separated. Together, they enlarge our pp$pectives (Lichtenberg et ar.,
1996) as we make our way with our students through the complex interactions of
intergroup dialogue. In particular, the focus on trust as an on-going process within a
developmental context supports fostering an overall positive intergroup dialogue
experiencc. Trust, as a primary condition for relationship, supports particjpants'
ability to stay authentically engaged even when the dialoguo gets tense, confusing,
unpleasant, injurious, or hopeless. Through an empathic stance, we attend to
students' potential distress, ambivalence, and hope which helps us raframe and work
€ffectively with resistancc, defensiveness, and negative affect as central and not
subversive to positive intergroup interactions. Facilitators' ability to manage their
own affective processes minimizes the effects of thcir affect, frees up more psychic
energy, ifyou will, to devote to the dialogue. The developmental framework provides
us with an understanding of how group processes unfold and allows us to gaugc the
quality of students sharing, inqui ng, and responding in relation to the particular
intellectual and affective tasks of each stage. Finally, the abovc guidelines support
working toward cognitive and affective integntion of thc material necessary for
optimal learning and change.
8. Research implicatioos
The complexity of emotional phenomena and of thc task of resealching in and
about this dynamic context of intergroup dialogue presents important methodolo-
gical concerns. How can we reasonably capture participants' emotional processes
without focusing so narrowly that we ignore or miss important aspects of what is
happening? On the other hand, how can we bring some clarity to the potential
morass of data? We might start with the question, what aspect of emotion m
educational intergroup contact do we want to measure? Do we want to attend lo
affective processes or content? What about the impact of facilitato$' role and M.L. Kturi / Intemationat Jonfuf of Inte..attutut Retatiotzr 28 (2004) 5954j2 609
emotions? In terms ofprocess, do we want to analyze th€ full emotionai picture, as it werc, or do we want to focus only on moments of heightened affect? Horv do we determine these moments? Would it be better to examin; the peaks in r€lation to the valleys?
In terms of content, do we want to try and differcntiate types of emotional
r,esponses? Do we focus only on "negative', affect such as anger, anxiety, or sadness? What about joy, relief, or hope? What about ambivalence? Do we wanr to differentiate sourc€s of emotion? Is it intergroup, interpemonal, or intrapsychically
derived?
Although we may crcate conceptual cladty about what is emotion and what we want to study, a further complication of emotion entails the tacit nature ol its communication, that is, it is highly dependent on relational contexts (Orange, 1995). Additionally, people vary in thcir ability to experience, identify, riescribe, and decode enlottonal responses in different contexts (Leyens et a|.,2002). Students may not be willing or able to verbally reveal what they ar.e expcriencing right in the moment. As an example, during phasc two of a dialogue, strong disagreement between whjtg American and African American students emerged for the lirst time. Thb facilitators and a couple of pa icipants noted the heightencd tension, yet most of the participants shared the response',interesting" when asked to ptovide one word to describe how they felt about the class that day. ..Interesting" is not an cmotion but rather an evaluative description ofsomething external to the participant! yer tr may indirectly express particular affective expeiences or it may express the participants,
relative closeness or distance from affective expcriences. How and what are we ro infer fiom that word in terms of emotional processes ol content? Do dill.eront participants mean different things with that same word?
Researching affective phenomena in intergroup clialogue presents us witir comptex
challenges that may, nonetheless, reward us with rich undirstandine of emotional processes in educational, intergroup contact and how these ,"rponr", rlloy
fundamentally relate to learning outcomes and improving jntergroup r€lations.
References
Adams,M.,B€ll,L.A.,&crimn,P.(Eds.).(t99?).Teachnqfordiue\ityantsoctutjustice:Ananrtnta,.
New York: Rouiledge.
Alarno, C. (2002). Inkryroup .lialogues: Cohceptuatitations. strutesies. and pedasogies. Unpubtistred
Allporl, G. (1979). The katurc of preju.lice (25rh ed.). Readins, MA: Addison-Westey.
Alhan, N. (1995). The ahalyst in the iMet dty: Race, cl6s,.'nd cuhure throush a psyhoanotytic tenr. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Beale, R., & Schoern, D. (2001). The conrentprocess batance in inlerBroup diatogue. rD D. Scboem, & S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intetgroup dialosue: Dcliberatibe democru.r tu sctloot, cottese, conmutlit), ana h'otkplace (pp.26G219). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michisan press.
Beatty, B. R. (2002). tuotiohal episrenolosies and educationat leadership: A conceptut ftatnevork. papel
presented a! lhe Annual Meering of the American Educationat Research Assocjalion. N€w Orleans.
LA.
Beebe, B. (2004). Faces in relafion: A case study. Psyclrc@abNit Diatosues. t4(t\. t-5t. g$S,{iiii
;iisffs$iis
iliiii;i;il;i
iEr?5;;if;!;;l
$H
sI
€
tf
I:
is
I':
:
:{'!
