Читать книгу Multicultural Psychology - Jennifer T. Pedrotti - Страница 22

Another way of thinking about culture is that there are several facets to every individual’s cultural identity. Pamela Hays (2016) presents a number of these facets as a part of her ADDRESSING framework. In this model, Hays uses the word ADDRESSING as an acronym for ten different cultural identity facets. (See Table 1.1 for a description of each facet.) Each of these identity facets might impact one’s view of the world on a daily basis; therefore, Hays discusses all as important to people in general. In addition, within each category, Hays notes which groups are the privileged or dominant groups in society and thus hold more power.

Table 1.1

Authors’ Note: This table uses the categories of dominant and nondominant that Hays uses in her book; however these lists are not meant to be comprehensive. For example, we would include “nonbinary” under gender, “Asian American” under ethnic and racial identity, and anyone under the LGBTQ+ rainbow under sexual orientation.

Source: From Hays, P. A. (2016). Addressing cultural complexities in practice. Washington, DC: APA (p. 8).

The A in the framework stands for Age. Hays talks about the impact of the generation that one comes from and makes the case that this may shape beliefs and experiences. Groups that fall into the minority in this group are the aged as well as children. Both groups have less social power in our society due to their age. The DD in the ADDRESSING framework stands for Disability: Developmental or other Disability. This identity facet is meant to encompass any form of disability including mental, physical, or psychiatric types of disabilities, and covers both disabilities that one might be born with and those that could be acquired due to an accident or some other instance. Those who possess one of the mentioned types of disabilities are in the disenfranchised group in this category.

The R in Hays’s ADDRESSING framework stands for Religion and spiritual orientation. This facet covers both organized religious groups and nondenominational types of spirituality. In the United States, Christian religions are the dominant group, and so all non-Christian religions (including Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, among others) are the group lacking in power in this facet. It is important to note that within the facet of religion are also individuals who do not identify as having a religion. Hays notes that some individuals who belong to lesser-populated Christian groups (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses) may also view themselves as religious minorities, but privileges do exist for these groups inherent in the fact that they are still part of the Christian faith.

The E stands for Ethnic and racial identity, and Hays makes note that non-White ethnic and racial groups are considered to be the nondominant societal group in terms of this facet in the United States. This may include individuals from Asian, Latinx, African American, and Middle Eastern backgrounds, as well as multiracial individuals that may come from a combination of racial backgrounds. This particular aspect in her model is a key feature of cultural identity. For some in the dominant White group, this facet might be one that is less salient on a personal level due to a person being a part of the majority group. Nevertheless, race and ethnicity, perhaps particularly in the United States, are distinctly important factors in worldview and daily experiences.

The first S in the framework is for Socioeconomic status, including social class, income, and often occupation and education. Minority groups here are those who lack social capital in the form of economics or education. Those who live below the poverty level often have no access to higher education, which in turn leads to fewer options for higher-level occupations. The second S is for Sexual orientation, including such cultural identities as heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and/or bisexual. Nonheterosexual groups are the minority in this facet and include anyone along the LGBTQ+ rainbow. It is important to recognize that some of the facets included in the LGBTQ+ acronym (namely transgender and sometimes queer) are really gender identities, though they have been grouped with sexual orientations in the past. In Hays’s model, gender is discussed separately.

The I is a unique facet that is often left out of cultural discussions (Hays, 2016) and stands for Indigenous heritage in this model. Minority groups here include individuals who have native or indigenous backgrounds. Hays distinguishes this facet from ethnic and racial identity, because these facets may have different influences on life experience. As Hays states, “Many Indigenous people identify as part of a worldwide culture of Indigenous people who have concerns and issues separate from those of ethnic and racial minority groups (e.g., land, water, [or] fishing rights related to subsistence and cultural traditions) and who, in some cases, constitute sovereign nations” (p. 11). The N in the framework stands for National origin, and individuals who may identify as international students, immigrants, or refugees are the less powerful group in this facet. And finally, the G in Hays’s model stands for Gender. This category has changed somewhat since the first iteration of Hays’s model, as gender is viewed currently more as a fluid identity along a continuum as compared to past descriptions as a binary division. This category includes identifications such as woman, man, transgender, and androgyne, with those who identify as men being the powerful group.

All of these facets and their various combinations impact our understanding of the world and often determine our reactions, our interpretations, and our experiences in general. An example might be found in comparing the views and habits of someone who grew up during the Great Depression with those of someone who is a teenager in the current time. Differences between these two individuals might exist such that the first person is more cautious about money, or perhaps the second person is more open-minded to same-sex marriage, having been exposed to this idea from a young age. Social issues, economic conditions, or other details characteristic of the time period in which we live impact our cultural identity. Hays talks about the impact of one’s ability status on one’s life in general with this portion of her theory. Identifying as having a disability of any kind again impacts the way one sees the world, including factors such as safety, accessibility (both physical and in terms of feasibility), and even daily scheduling (Hays, 2016).

As shown with Hays’s (2016) theory, culture can be defined in both narrow ways (e.g., only race or nation or origin) or in more broad ways (e.g., Hays’s model). Today, many in the United States and worldwide are starting to realize that a broader definition might be more descriptive in coming to understandings about people in different groups. This is not to negate the power or salience of particular cultural facets in different contexts. Race and ethnicity, for example, have a very strong salience in the United States such that our history is inextricably linked to this particular identity facet. We would put forth that race, ethnicity, and the potential physical characteristics, or lack thereof, of these identities influence all of us within US society daily. Being White in our society garners different treatment than that given to individuals who are Asian American or African American. This particular facet is often used to judge other personal characteristics and to create stereotypes.