Question

The text has attempted to present opposing views of what multiculturalism means as it applies to crisis intervention. What do you think in regard to the following questions? a) Should multiculturalism be universal or focused in its outlook when it comes to a crisis? (10 points) b) Does an individualist/collectivist view matter when one is in the middle of a crisis? How much? (10 points) c) Does seeking to operate on a high/low context in relationship to the client matter when a crisis is occurring? How much? (10 points)

Answer 1

(a) I think that multiculturalism must be universal because, when we have a universal view, it helps us to understand and identify the people who belong to various racial and ethnic backgrounds, people who belong to the minorities and also the ones belonging to the special populations. Whereas a focused view can only be useful in identifying and examining those people who belong to the visible racial and ethnic groups.

When a crisis intervention is provided, it is important that the person providing the intervention has knowledge about the culture of the client to whom the intervention is provided. The intervention provider must also be aware of the biases that is present in his own culture, so that he is not influenced by it when providing the intervention. He must first analyze himself as, how he is feeling, and how important it is to neglect his prejudices regarding the cultural diversity. It could be done when the intervention provider is willing to, and being capable of accepting and using the techniques and methods that suits the client's culture. This will also ensure to develop a good rapport and building relationship between the intervention provider and the client by overcoming their cultural differences. It will also help in the early resolving of the crisis.

(b) The individualist and collectivist view is important in providing crisis intervention. This is because, clients from a individualist culture centralizes oneself to be the most important component when compared to the society. They prefer low context relationship and a direct communication that is to the point. The approaches that are confronting and have arbitration works best to resolve the conflict in individualists. Whereas people from the collectivists cultures assume greater importance to the society and consider themselves as a part of the larger society. They prefer indirect communication that have high context relationships. The approaches that have accommodation are effective in providing intervention to clients from collectivist cultures.

(c) Depending on the culture of the client, using a high context or a low context is necessary to make the crisis intervention more effective. High context cultures give more importance to close relationships, implicit communication and non verbal cues such as through facial expressions, eye contact, tone of voice. People who prefer high context define their self image and self worth in respect to their group. When the intervention provider directly confronts about the crisis, they may feel embarrassed, offended or humiliated. Whereas low context cultures give more importance for expressing the opinion explicitly and verbally. They define their self worth and self image in their individual terms. The clients from low context cultures do not prefer long lectures or story telling in providing the intervention and prefers a direct discussion about the crisis.