As an Adlerian, I am often reminded that there is much work to be done. Whether it is community involvement or integrating Adlerian principles into my syllabus, I feel that there is never enough time in the day. There is always a project to further Adlerian philosophy and to make it more accessible. Nevertheless, I often think of the question of “How has the Adlerian movement historically addressed state-sponsored, structural, and deeply rooted personal racism? (Bluvshtein et al., 2021, p. 253)”. This question particularly affects me as a student, professor, and member of a disproportionately affected population. 

Personally, I regularly struggle with this question for many reasons. As a queer Chicano with many intersecting identities, representation is not something I am used to, nor is it adequately defined or represented across various settings, especially within the field of higher education. For example, according to the CACREP Vital Statistics 2020 (2019), only 1.91% of CACREP full time faculty are Latino/Hispanic men. Breaking down the statistics further, only 1.59 % of Latin men are doctoral students (CACREP Vital Statistics 2020, 2019). Looking at these statistics, I am not surprised for I am part of the number both as a doctoral candidate and adjunct at Adler University. 

This statistic proposes unique challenges in the overall mental health field as well. For example, the slow stream of training minority clinicians is inadequate to keep up with the growth of minorities within the United States (Zayas & Torres, 2009). At the fundamental level, most master level students in CACREP programs are White females, 47.37% to be exact (CACREP, 2019). This leaves the potential for future patients/clients without a counselor that may be representative of their gender, age, disability, gender and sexual diversity, socioeconomic status, spiritual, racial identity, cultural upbringing, or ethnic identity. Especially among Latino men, they may feel alienated by clinicians and approaches that are not culturally based (Zayas & Torres, 2009). In my experience as a practicum instructor, students are often ill prepared to counsel non-White patients/clients. One of the reasons being, understanding implications surrounding race, ethnicity, and culture, as well as broaching the subject overall.

For example, the definition of Race varies in many ways from academic literature to government mandates. This can cause confusion for many students, practitioners, as well as individuals looking to understand the inherent differences. Day-Vines et al. (2007, p. 403) described race in which the term “had biological connotations referring to phenotypic characteristics of homosapiens; currently, however, the term is used as a social construction that refers more to systems of dominance that subordinate non-White groups than it does to skin color, genetic, or biological features.” This definition addresses structural and state sponsored racism, while also alluding to the personal implications surrounding what an individual perceives and formulates about race. We as Adlerians can argue this is an individual’s private logic. At the bare minimum, this piece is crucial toward understanding race at a fundamental level. In actuality, the “racial reality of Whites is radically different from that of people of color” (Sue, 2010; Sue & Sue, 2015). Sue & Sue (2015) further argued that from their research, most “Whites perceive themselves as unbiased individuals who do not harbor racist thoughts and feelings; they see themselves as working toward social justice and possessing a conscious desire to better the life circumstances of those less fortunate than they”. I ask the reader to imagine what term or terms resonate from this sentence and why. 

Thus, this distinction is important to note as Race is often lumped with ethnicity or ethnic identity. Phinney (1990; 1992, p. 158) described ethnic identity as

“all ethnic group members are self-identification as a group member, a sense of belonging, and attitudes toward one’s group.”

A quick glance at the description by Phinney includes the word belonging, another core concept to Adlerian Theory. As evident from these two descriptions, core concepts relevant to Adlerian Theory emerge. Parallels can thus be drawn between Adlerian Theory and concept of race and ethnicity, both historically and currently. 

NASAP has had a history of promoting social justice and equality in addressing racism at an organization level. For example, Adlerian members attempted to address racism in 1974 (Bluvshtein et al., 2021). Dreikurs himself wrote about the subject in the 1960’s and early 1970’s. Social Justice initiatives have also taken off over the decades within the organization and continue to do so in the manner of committees, task forces, and sections. Another example is the social justice practica that occurs in universities. These experiences help students recognize the implications surrounding clinical practice, but also how service can support localized communities. Lastly, within scholarship, the JIP Survey sent out last year found that readers want more articles on these very same topics discussed.

This is where we can always grow as practitioners, parents, activists, artists, scholars, conservationists, students, faculty, family, peers, colleagues, friends and many more. These conversations are messy and require courage and by far, courageous spaces in tackling this head on. By acknowledging, recognizing, and addressing these facets, we can as a community create action steps toward a more equitable organizational environment that addresses systemic racism, look deeper into our biases, empower, and center voices. Now the initial question can be asked once more with some slight variation: “How have you historically addressed state-sponsored, structural, and deeply rooted personal racism?”

References

Bluvshtein, M., Wilson, M., Moore, T., Napoleón, J., & Watkins, K.A. (2021). Kenneth B. Clark and His "Implications of Adlerian Theory for an Understanding of Civil Rights Problems and Actions": 54 Years Later. The Journal of Individual Psychology 77(3), 253-275. doi:10.1353/jip.2021.0028.

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2022). CACREP vital statistics 2019: Results from a national survey of accredited programs (https://www.cacrep.org/)

Day-Vines, N. L., Wood, S. M., Grothaus, T., Craigen, L., Holman, A., Dotson-Blake, K., & Douglass, M. J. (2007). Broaching the subjects of race, ethnicity, and culture during the counseling process. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85(4), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2007.tb00608.x

Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.499

Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/074355489272003

Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. John Wiley & Sons Inc

Sue, & Sue, D. (2015). Counseling the Culturally Diverse Theory and Practice. (7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Zayas, L.H., & Torres, L.R. (2009). Culture and masculinity: When therapist and patient are Latino men. Clinical Social Work Journal, 37, 294-302.

Reflections on the Complexities of Race & Ethnicity

by Corey Frantz