6220 Wk 7 Discussion: Analyzing a Fictional Character’s Personality

lieve that people of various cultures are
more similar than different. As Helgeson
(2012) articulates regarding the issue of
gender differences, “most of us have two
eyes, two arms, two legs; a heart, lungs, and
vocal chords . . . The same logic applies to
cognitive and social domains” (p. 103). Sim-
ilarly, Myers (2005) draws from G. K. Ches-
terton’s observations—“When someone has
‘discovered why men in Bond Street wear
black hats he will at the same moment have
discovered why men in Timbuctoo wear red
feathers’” (Myers, 2005, p. 180)—to expli-
cate the universality of fundamental psycho-
logical processes. Although such nomothetic
propositions are often drowned by loud pro-
tests directed against the ethnocentrism of
mainstream psychology, we must neverthe-
less reiterate that the contributions of psy-
chologists from all the different camps are
essential in order to weave a truly coherent
and meaningful fabric of human behavior.

REFERENCES

Baron-Cohen, S. (2000). Autism: Deficits in folk
psychology exist alongside superiority in folk
physics. In S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flus-
berg, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Understanding other
minds: Perspectives from autism and develop-
mental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed., pp.
73– 82). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.

Bhagat, C. (2014, July 17). Bestselling English
author: I write about an India that the West is
not interested in. The Huffington Post. Re-
trieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
chetan-bhagat/bestselling-english-author_b_
5575570.html?ir�India

Christopher, J. C., Wendt, D. C., Marecek, J., &
Goodman, D. M. (2014). Critical cultural
awareness: Contributions to a globalizing psy-
chology. American Psychologist, 69, 645–
655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036851

Helgeson, V. (2012). of gender (4th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educa-
tion.

Myers, D. G. (2005). Social psychology (8th
ed.). New Delhi, India: Tata McGraw-Hill.

Rao, M. A., Berry, R., Gonsalves, A., Hastak, Y.,
Shah, M., & Roeser, R. W. (2013). Globalization
and the identity remix among urban adolescents in
India. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23,
9 –24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jora.12002

Sartre, J. (1956). Being and nothingness (H. E.
Barnes, Trans.). New York, NY: Washington
Square Press.

Schwartz, S. H., & Sagie, G. (2000). Value con-
sensus and importance: A cross-national
study. Journal of Cross-Cultural ,
31, 465– 497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00220
22100031004003

Correspondence concerning this comment should
be addressed to Christine N. Winston, Depart-
ment of , Women’s Christian Col-
lege, College Road, Chennai – 600 006, India.
E-mail: [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038984

Revisiting Cultural Awareness
and Cultural Relevancy

Naji Abi-Hashem
Independent Practice, Seattle, Washington

and Beirut, Lebanon

I was delighted to see the article on “Critical
Cultural Awareness” in the October issue of
the American Psychologist by Christopher,
Wendt, Marecek, and Goodman (2014).

The more insights and exploration of
the meaning and influence of culture we
receive, the better. There is no single treat-
ment of any personal or collective cul-
ture(s) that can be inherently complete or
totally exhaustive. New hermeneutics and
skills are always needed, appreciated, and
refreshing.

A few thousand years ago, Socrates
once said, “Know Thyself.” Culturally
speaking, the practice of self-awareness re-
mains a desired virtue. That was true in an-
cient times, and is still true today, especially
when modern societies and subcultures are
changing more rapidly than ever and unfold-
ing faster than we can mentally adapt, so-
cially digest, or emotionally process.

The concept of culture does not ap-
pear to be fixed or static but is always
dynamic and is ever fluid. As a Lebanese
American, I continue to observe, study,
and interact with so many cultures and
subcultures locally and globally, espe-
cially comparing the differences and sim-
ilarities between the East and the West
(and anything in between). I find the no-
tion of culture(s) in general to be intrigu-
ing and truly fascinating!

Actually, there are many layers of
cultures and many spheres of world-
views, even within one geographical
area, urban setting, or residential loca-
tion. That is also true inside the faculties
of the human personality, on individual
level as well. It seems there are subcul-
tures within each culture, mentalities
within each mentality, and worldviews
within each worldview.

Furthermore, I find that cultures can-
not be adequately defined or fully under-
stood. They are better felt than defined and
better experienced than explained (Abi-
Hashem, 1997, 2014a, 2014b; Cohen,
2009). I wish sometimes that our graduate
schools in psychology would require more
cultural studies and anthropological train-
ing to equip students for dealing with the
rich and yet complex phenomena of our
global-social-local-personal culture(s).

I would like to add to the well-docu-
mented treatment and discussion that

Christopher et al. (2014) provided, that it is
also critical to emphasize that our cultural
self-awareness must be quite frequent and
up-to-date. It is not a one-time procedure,
examination, or discovery. The present
times we live in are changing fast, deep,
and strong, affecting our existential iden-
tity and sense of cultural and global self (if
I may use the term—as I have been trying
to develop this concept recently).

That is, who are we becoming cultur-
ally at this globalized, polarized, and digi-
talized age? Societies are drastically vary-
ing and rapidly moving, and the world’s
cultures are increasingly mixing and inter-
acting, more than ever. With the invasion
of the Internet and its cyberspace technol-
ogy into all aspects of modern life, the
traditional norms, geographical boundaries,
basic structures, social values, established
lifestyles, and national heritages are hold-
ing no more.

Virtually, any field of knowledge,
discipline, or helping profession has many
concepts, principles, and constructs that are
universal in nature, and could apply and be
understood anywhere in the world.

However, each discipline, including
psychology, has many specifics and partic-
ulars that are not readily applicable else-
where or well suited to be used outside
their place of origin. These are solely local
and provisional, relevant only to the imme-
diate context where they are designed, for-
mulated, and produced. They usually make
sense inside (not outside) their cultural
contours. But if they were to be introduced
or applied elsewhere, nearby or faraway,
they will need serious screening, trimming,
and adaptation, as well as thoughtful revi-
sions, modifications, and alterations. Oth-
erwise, they will remain foreign and un-
suitable to the population in mind, which
could be a special target audience, a minor-
ity group, a local community, or even an-
other society or a different nation.

In addition, each discipline has some
aspects, theories, tools, and assumptions
that are counterculture in nature and will
eventually cause confusion, if not harm,
when they are applied blindly and without
any discernment. These are totally irrele-
vant and need to be omitted all together (cf.
Abi-Hashem, 2014b).

How do we know the difference be-
tween what is cultural-normal-natural
and what is clinical-abnormal-unnatural,
especially when we work cross-culturally
or transnationally? The answer is by ex-
perience and by allowing ourselves to be
coached and trained by local educators
and caregivers. They are the indigenous
experts who know enough about their
own settings and mentalities and some-

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

y.

660 October 2015 ● American Psychologist

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chetan-bhagat/bestselling-english-author_b_5575570.html?ir=India

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chetan-bhagat/bestselling-english-author_b_5575570.html?ir=India

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chetan-bhagat/bestselling-english-author_b_5575570.html?ir=India

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036851

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jora.12002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031004003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031004003

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038984

thing about ours (and where we come
from and how we operate). Otherwise,
good intentions and self-confidence on
the part of the visiting professionals are
not enough.

I personally spend several months a
year in Beirut, Lebanon, focusing on
community service, teaching, counseling,
training, crisis intervention, and trauma
debriefing among various Middle East-
erner populations and refugees living
there, as well as interacting with profes-
sionals and educators on various levels. I
have experimented with many concepts,
approaches, themes, and techniques
widely practiced in North America, only
to find that some of them were ineffective
and questionable.

While the more generic principles
and universal methods work nicely across
the board and people relate and respond
well to them, other notions, approaches,
and interventions remain very awkward
and foreign. They appear to be counterpro-
ductive and unfortunately do complicate
the relationships as well as the outcomes.
Some actually have negative side-effects!
Like suggesting a strict separation-individ-
uation process, or a sharp drawing of per-
sonal boundaries on the expense of alien-
ating family and friends and other essential
community bonding; or encouraging rigid
privacy, impersonal autonomy, and total
self-reliance, thus glorifying I-me-myself
on the expense of we-us-together. This can
destroy the fabric of communal harmony
and intimate-collaborative beauty of many
families, groups, communities, and societ-
ies, because individuals have full meaning
and clear identity only in relationship to
significant others, in a fluid interdepen-
dence and interconnectedness (rather than
floating alone). Another example would be
the open expression of anger and resent-
ment. To encourage a quick verbalization
of anger and hate is very foreign and
shameful in many subcultures, e.g., “I hate
my mother,” “I am angry at my father (or
spouse),” or pushing the person to directly
express and confront others publicly, as if
to rub anger in their face. Indirect ways of
describing and expressing negative emo-
tions are more common in many traditions.
Therefore, helping-professionals ought to
be very careful and very patient with them-
selves and with those they attempt to serve,
either across the street, across the border,
or across the ocean.

In the Arabic language, there is no
single term or word to describe the Eng-
lish parallel of “culture.” Rather, several
terms are used, at times, to convey the
meaning of culture and to capture its
overall essence, like, Hadaarah (civiliza-

tion), Thihneyyah (mentality), Thakaafah
(educational civility), and Turaath (liv-
ing tradition).

Finally, as we strive toward a better
contextualization and a healthy internation-
alization of all social sciences, in general,
and the psychological concepts, tools,
methods, and therapeutic skills, in particu-
lar, let us do these with full hermeneutic
integrity, professional sensitivity, and cul-
tural humility. Surely, the results will be
more effective, the experiences more
meaningful, and the newfound relation-
ships more rewarding.

REFERENCES

Abi-Hashem, N. (1997). Reflections on “Inter-
national perspectives in psychology.” Ameri-
can Psychologist, 52, 569 –570. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.569.b

Abi-Hashem, N. (2014a). Worldview. In D. A.
Leeming (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology
and religion (2nd ed., pp. 1938 –1941). New
York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4614-6086-2_9357

Abi-Hashem, N. (2014b). Cross-cultural psy-
chology and counseling: A Middle Eastern
perspective. Journal of and Chris-
tianity, 33, 156 –163.

Christopher, J. C., Wendt, D. C., Marecek, J., &
Goodman, D. M. (2014). Critical cultural
awareness: Contributions to a globalizing psy-
chology. American Psychologist, 69, 645–
655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036851

Cohen, A. B. (2009). Many forms of culture.
American Psychologist, 64, 194 –204. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015308

Correspondence concerning this comment
should be addressed to Naji Abi-Hashem, 14054
Wallingford Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98133.
E-mail: [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038965

Cultural Humility:
The Cornerstone of Positive

Contact With Culturally
Different Individuals and

Groups?

Joshua N. Hook
and C. Edward Watkins Jr.
University of North Texas

Increased globalization has resulted in in-
creased connections between different
kinds of individuals and groups, in a sense
“flattening” the world (Friedman, 2007).
Psychologists have been influenced by this
increased globalization and, with far
greater frequency than ever before, now
engage with individuals and groups from a
host of different nations and cultures. But

increased contact alone does not necessar-
ily undo the parochialism and ethnocen-
trism of psychology in the United States.
As noted by Christopher, Wendt, Marecek,
and Goodman (2014), “U.S. psychology
remains not only overwhelmingly U.S.-
centric but also largely unaware of how its
cultural roots shape theory and research”
(Christopher et al., 2014, p. 645). Their
case example about the 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami in Sri Lanka loudly and clearly
reflects that reality— demonstrating how
failure to incorporate cultural consider-
ations into helping strategies can result in
wasted efforts and even bring harm to the
very people that we are attempting to aid. It
indeed appears that the way in which psy-
chologists engage with culturally different
individuals and groups can still be a serious
problem in the delivery of competent psy-
chological services.

But why? Why is it that many psy-
chologists— despite such increasingly di-
versifying opportunities for cultural con-
tact, despite being trained and steeped in
the values of multiculturalism, and despite
being designated as leaders in promoting
multiculturalism and positive cultural en-
gagement— continue to seemingly struggle
to positively engage with culturally differ-
ent individuals and groups? And how is it
that large failures, such as the response to
the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, could hap-
pen but a decade ago and could perhaps
still happen again now? From our perspec-
tive, answers to those questions can be
found in what may well be the very foun-
dational cornerstone of any and all cultural
contact: cultural humility. Although a more
commonly used concept in family medi-
cine (Falicov, 2014), cultural humility —an
important component of multicultural com-
petence and multicultural orientation— has
recently begun to gain increasing traction
as a vital explanatory construct and prac-
tice-crucial variable in psychological ser-
vice provision (e.g., Falicov, 2014; Hook,
Davis, Owen, Worthington, & Utsey, 2013;
Owen, 2013). Intrapersonally, cultural hu-
mility involves a willingness and openness
to reflect on one’s own self as an embedded
cultural being, having an awareness of per-
sonal limitations in understanding the cul-
tural background and viewpoints of others;
interpersonally, cultural humility involves
an other-oriented stance (or openness to the
other) with regard to aspects of an individ-
ual’s or group’s cultural background and
identity. Some of the core features of a
culturally humble stance have been empir-
ically identified as being respectful and
considerate of the other; being genuinely
interested in, open to exploring, and want-
ing to understand the other’s perspective;

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

y.

661October 2015 ● American Psychologist

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.569.b

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.569.b

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6086-2_9357

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6086-2_9357

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036851

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015308

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015308

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038965