summary

Smith College Studies in Social Work 74(2), 2004

TALKING WHEN TALKING IS TOUGH: TAKING ON CONVERSATIONS ABOUT RACE,

SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER, CLASS AND OTHER ASPECTS OE SOCIAL IDENTITY*

Joshua Miller, Ph.D., Susan Donner, Ph.D., & Edith Fraser, Ph.D.

Abstract

Conversations that involve aspects of social identity are important to engage in, yet challenging. They involve diverse experiences, worldviews and differential social power and privilege. This paper explores why it is important to engage in difficult conversations about social identity, what the consequences are of avoiding them, what makes them challenging, and how to create an environment where such conversations can occur.

INTRODUCTION

Conversations connect us to other people. They can be a source of intimacy and pleasure, reinforcing our sense of belonging, affinning who we are and what we believe in, bolstering our sense of self worth. Conversations can also become difficult, painful, confusing, and frustrat- ing. In difficult conversations we can feel alienated, misunderstood, attacked, and even victimized (Stone, Patton, & Heen, 1999). Eor this reason, many people avoid having difficult conversations. When a conversation involves an aspect of a person's social identity and group allegiance and is between people with varied social identities, the potential for misunderstanding increases. Differences in social identity do not only involve 'difference,' but also represent societal inequities of power, privilege and oppression.

Yet as social work educators and practitioners it is not only difficult to avoid conversations that involve aspects of our social identities, but doing so contravenes our professional ethics. In this paper we will discuss the need to talk even when talking is tough, the challenges of talking about issues of social identity between people with different social identities, and the negative consequences of failing to have tough conversations.

* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Smith College School for Social Work Monday Night Lecture series in 2000,

378 MILLER, DONNER, AND ERASER

Drawn from research, as well as from our practice and teaching experience, we conclude with recommendations about ways to better facilitate seemingly intractable conversations. Our fmdings are relevant for teaching, discussions with colleagues, community advocacy, and our work as clinical practitioners.

THE IMPORTANCE OE TALKING WHEN TALKING IS TOUGH

The United States of America is one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse countries in the world. Due to historical legacies and current social realities, differences in power and privilege are manifest in diverse groups. Eor example, gay and lesbian people do not have the priv- ilege of marriage. As a result, they are not as able to share their partner's assets and benefits, as do heterosexual people. White people assume that they can live where they choose and not be stopped by law enforcement officials while driving. This protection is due to their skin color, a reality people of color cannot take for granted. Differences in social and eco- nomic class inevitably represent vast differences in the power to spend, purchase goods and buy services, and command resources. In these dimensions diversity in the U.S. is not just a source of difference, but also a font of inequality (Miller, 1997, 2003).

Diversity is a defining characteristic of human experience that increases a person's consciousness of who they are in relation to other people. Externally, this manifests itself through group allegiances. Internally, it manifests itself through people's sense of personal identity and how they view themselves in relation to others. A sense of self and choices about group affiliation are shaped by experiences and encounters with other people, encounters that can be both positive and negative. Negative encounters can evoke a wish to withdraw into groups where one is surrounded by similar people, thereby increasing social isolation and reinforcing a sense of 'us' against 'them.' Group allegiances can anchor individuals but also be a source of group conflict (Group for The Advancement of Psychiatry [GAP], 1987). People who are perceived as different can become symbolic "others" who are seen as different, "dia- bolical," morally deficient, and/or less human (Eisher, 1990; GAP, 1987; Miller & Schamess, 2000). Negative perception of members of different groups enhances the positive identities of members of the in-group (Triandafyllidou, 1998). Conflict with members of other groups also enhances the bonds between members of the in-group (Coser, 1956). Historically, violent subjugation of less technologically advanced groups

TALKING WHEN TALKING IS TOUGH 379

by more technologically advanced groups has been a destructive way of resolving diversity (Diamond, 1997). Engaging in difficult conversations about meaningful differences and similarities offers a possible altemative to resolving differences by force, which can lead to wars, genocide, apartheid, slavery, ethnic cleansing, and displacement with massive waves of refugees.

Implicit in violent resolution of conflict is the dehumanization of the target group or person. This can happen on a large scale, with blanket denunciations of a particular ethnic, religious or racial group. It also occurs, however, in day-to-day interactions with colleagues, family and friends (Stone, et. al., 1999). Engaging in healthy conversation involves empathy and concem and respect for the other person, viewing them as a "thou" or "you" (Buber, 1957) rather than as an object or a two-dimen- sional stereotype. Although the effort to truly understand people who are different (or in tum to risk the vulnerability involved in opening oneself up to being understood) can be demanding and arduous, such conversa- tions can ultimately be transformative. They can alter our sense of self and our understanding of people who have heretofore been dismissed and misunderstood, permitting the unfolding of a richer, more complex and compassionate sense of others and ourselves.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OE AVOIDING DIEEICULT CONVERSATIONS?

We have described above the worst consequences of avoiding difficult conversations regarding difference: violence, war and human destruction. In our daily work and lives, we encounter other negative consequences that are also destructive, if less nihilistic. In this paper we utilize examples from college classrooms to explore the destructive consequences of avoiding challenging conversations about difference and extrapolate this to clinical practice as well.

One consequence is that the utilization of developmentally immature defense mechanisms, such as denial and projection, are common respons- es to interpersonal stressors. An example of denial in classrooms and other groups is a statement frequently made by white people: "People are people, I never see color." Such statements can abort discussions about race and racism by denying that the construction of race has any meaning in people's lives, thereby creating a sense of discomfort among partici- pants. Along with unarticulated strong affect there threats to individual identity are often perceived (Stone, et al., 1999). When clinicians are

380 MILLER, DONNER, AND FRASER

unable to talk about issues of social identity clients often feel invalidated or invisible.

If a group member challenges or questions a statement like, "I never see color," other members can become angry and defensive. We have observed students retreating after such confrontations and glaring at the professor for the rest of a course without speaking, sometimes sitting at an angle that avoids eye contact. A form of projection occurs when an offended student accuses others of being racist for raising the topic of race and racism. Similar responses can occur in regard to other aspects of social identity such as sexual orientation.

The tensions and anxiety engendered by discussions of difference often lead to attempts to change the subject or to discount the importance of discussing difference by disavowing the social identity of the other per- son. For example, an African-American professor may raise issues of racism when discussing the history of social welfare policy or a lesbian professor may assert the relevance of sexual orientation in a class on family policy. They, in tum, may fmd that they are challenged about the relevance of these issues because of who they are. Common student responses are "this is a class about the history of social welfare policy, not racism - why do you keep distracting us from the central course content" or "we need to examine real family policies - this is not a class about sex- ual orientation."

It is not surprising that discussions about differences can lead class members to challenge and/or distance themselves from people who are different. Genuine conversation may necessitate confrontations with the various forms of denial that people have developed to avoid recognizing power and privilege differentials in their daily lives. Here is an example:

Recently at a small Christian college in the south, two lesbian women of color were invited to speak to students in a social work class. During the discussion, students were unusually quiet and distant. The class was unable to actively engage with the presen- ters, who (at least on the surface) were different in many ways from class members. In the next class the students condemned and questioned the presentation and the presenters, and then confronted and challenged the professor. Subsequent conversa- tions revealed the difficulty and sense of discomfort this all-female class of students had with women of color who differed from them in so many ways, e.g. class, gender identification and sexual orientation. To engage in this difficult

TALKING WHEN TALKING IS TOUGH 381

conversation required that students confront their own homophobia and internalized oppression, a conversation they wanted to avoid. In order to engage in meaningful conversation with the lesbian presenters, students had to recognize and confront their own privilege and their own role as agents of oppression.

One way of conceptualizing the social hierarchies and power differentials associated with differences in social identity involves the notions of 'agent' and 'target' (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997). Along any one dimension of social identity are those who have privilege (agents) and those who lack privilege (targets), thereby becoming the objects of dis- crimination. Typical examples of agents are whites, males, heterosexuals, upper-class people, while common targets are people of color, women, homosexuals, bisexuals, and poor people. Agents often lack awareness of the privileges that accompany their status. So whites often believe that racism is a problem of the past because they never encounter it. Married heterosexuals need not think about the negative consequences of not being able to share employment benefits with partners. Wealthy persons rarely appreciate the experience of trying to survive on TANF benefits. Mclntosh (1989) has referred to the privileges agents carry as an "invisi- ble knapsack."

Failure to engage in meaningful conversations with people who are targets, whether in the classroom or the consulting room, reinforces the invisibility of privilege for agents. Agents often do not understand or grasp the experience of targeted people and are surprised and shocked to learn about experiences of targeted groups. Most people with agent status do not view themselves as having power and privilege (Goodman, 2001). Thus, when agents are confronted with the inequity of their unearned privilege and are not engaged in meaningful dialogue, they may experi- ence cognitive dissonance (Miller & Schamess, 2000). They can experi- ence conflict between their internalized belief of having earned their place in a fundamentally just society, and the realization that they have benefited from advantages of birth in an essentially unjust social order. Since most people like to think that their social world is fair and that they have earned what they have achieved, it is easier to blame target groups for their own predicament. So, people of color are held responsible for their higher rates of incarceration, lower rates of employment and shorter life expectancies, statistics agents tend to explain by citing cultural differences, lack of a work ethic or poor self-care, rather than social, political and economic marginalization.

382 MILLER, DONNER, AND FRASER

People of color, and other socially targeted groups, experience many negative consequences when confronted with such ignorance and arro- gance. One effect is a sense of frustration and rage (Hardy & Lasloffy, 1995), exacerbated when agents are unwilling to even engage in discussions about the differences in experiences. This can lead people in targeted groups to feel marginalized, unacknowledged, and invisible. Since such topics evoke anxiety in agents, they often avoid them, even when members of target groups try to raise them. Targeted people may then feel ignored, devalued and uncared for. Failure to address these dif- ferent experiences can leave evoke mistrust, hurt, and anger in both agents and targets. Unfortunately, target populations often internalize their anger and hostility with serious consequences such as, among African Americans, accelerated rates of high blood pressure, ulcers, obesity, and lower life expectancy (The National Academy of Sciences, 2002).

There are also group as well as personal ramifications for failure to address issues of diversity. Davis (1992) found that in sociology classes that focus on inequality, classroom climates of resistance, paralysis and rage are often generated. Denial of important differences in identities and power differentials can lead to a lack of authenticity in classroom groups. When this occurs, disagreements can be suppressed, leading to a conspir- acy of silence, manifest in a hegemonic group consensus that stifles dissent, nuances or critical thinking. Another outcome may be conflict and angry clashes that result in scapegoating, withdrawal and interaction- al strains. In tum, such phenomena negatively affect group cohesion and adversely influence the group's ability to work productively together. For example:

In a graduate social work program, students were participating in a process group as one component of their leaming experience. The group was structured for 5 sessions, held during class time and co-led by students. The process group had proven to be a successful leaming experience for many years and the focus was usually on the struggles of first-year graduate students who were adapting to graduate school. One year the group attempted to deal with issues of difference, specifically race, in these sessions. Students seemed unable to process this content. There was free floating anxiety and anger as students struggled to explore race in the group context. Students who attempted to encourage a deeper conversation were scapegoated and one student of color

TALKING WHEN TALKING IS TOUGH 383

became fearful about retuming to the group because of this painful experience. The professor, who had taught this course for a number of years, noticed that group cohesion and productivity had diminished in this process group. Apparently, the content and student anxieties about privilege and power had a profound impact on group cohesion and work effectiveness.

In our consultation work with clinical agencies, we have often found a similar process in play. Difficult conversations between staff members often go underground because of anxiety and threats to individual identi- ty and group cohesion. Workers report that they are confused about how and when to bring up issues of difference with clients in individually and in groups. This same dynamic also occurs in supervisory relationships.

Thus, it is not surprising that denial of difference and avoidant behavior has negative effects at the organizational level. This can create an uncomfortable working environment for staff of color, who feel dif- ferent, marginalized, stereotyped, or actively oppressed. Morale suffers, productivity is jeopardized, staff turnover may soar and the cohesiveness and solidarity of the work group is compromised. When "minorities" are hired they may feel tokenized and isolated. Time and energy can be expended on conflicts and miscommunications that occur because issues of difference have been ignored or avoided. Submerged tensions are more likely to erupt unexpectedly, catching administrators and employees by surprise and creating barriers that inhibit productive dialogue and conflict resolution.

When such conversations do not occur at the staff level in clinical settings, the odds are high that they are not being well handled with clients. Failure to acknowledge issues of social identity in clinical sessions can leave clients feeling that their life experiences are being negated (Carter, 1995; Helms, 1990; Helms & Cook, 1999; Ridley, 1995). A sense of self, which has often been wounded by societal affronts and indignities, can suffer further injury, including a sense of being disre- spected. Targeted populations mistrust agencies that deny or fail to acknowledge their existence. In clinic settings, dropout rates and no- shows may rise. Ultimately, this leads to an organizational failure to meet client needs. When this occurs there is a danger that the organization will blame clients instead of taking responsibility for the negative impact their system has on the people they try to serve. This can lead to dismissive statements such as "those people do not really want help," "they lack motivation," "their culture does not respect punctuality," and "they are not psychologically minded."

384 MILLER, DONNER, AND FRASER

Lapses of empathy and understanding that can occur when issues of difference are not discussed can compromise outreach efforts, bias intake processes, and support erroneous and inadequate discharge planning poli- cies. The entire organizational environment, ranging from the pictures and magazines in the waiting room to the way clients are addressed and communicated with can express bias, intolerance, disregard, and organizational arrogance.

Lastly, the divisiveness, denial, distrust, and cultural clashes that occur on an organizational level also happen on a societal level when there are no mechanisms to discuss difference. This failure implicitly reinforces the status quo, which involves literal and symbolic prejudice, marginaliza- tion, scapegoating and other forms of oppression. People will see and hear what they already believe because there are few, if any opportunities for challenging and interrogating their preconceptions.

WHAT MAKES TALKING ACROSS DIFFERENCE SO DIFFICULT

If there is such clear benefit to having conversations across difference and if the consequences of avoiding them can be so destructive, why are peo- ple so hesitant to engage in them? One reason is that many people lack experience in talking across and about difference. Racial segregation is still very common in neighborhoods (Feagin, 1999; Massey & Denton, 1993), and white people frequently lack meaningful encounters with peo- ple of color until they enter college or their workplaces (Shipler, 1997; Tatum, 1997). And, even when people from diverse backgrounds work or live together, such dialogues often do not take place. New York Times reporters, both people of color and white people, who had collaborated on a series about race in America noted the tendency to avoid talking about race and racism in the office (Roberts, 2000). Because such conversations are difficult they are avoided, but because they are circumvented they become even more challenging.

One reason for dodging difficult conversations is to protect people from feelings of vulnerability. Conversations across difference can threaten a person's view of him/herself as good, knowledgeable, competent and not wanting to harm others (Stone, et al., 1999). Such conversations also con- front agents with information about unearned privileges (Miller & Schamess, 2000). Awareness of these possibilities are often accompanied by strong emotions such as shame, guilt, fear, confusion, and anger (Stone et al, 1999; Tatum, 1997).

TALKING WHEN TALKING IS TOUGH 385

Talking when talking is tough can also challenge our cognitive templates and worldviews, an experience which can be very destabilizing and disorienting, particularly for people with agent status. A straight, middle class, white male's experience of oppression is likely to be less salient than someone who is gay, poor, female, or of color. For people with agent status, talking across difference may threaten cherished views that American society is inherently fair and that its institutions promote equality (Miller & Schamess, 2000). In addition, such discussions may challenge an individual's self experience, which s/he may not perceive as privileged (Goodman, 2001). To reconsider experiences of privilege is to reconsider assumptions about a reality to which individuals may be strongly attached. Trying to talk across difference may be experienced as a confrontation that carries with it a heavy sense of loss (Wah, 1994). For people who have experienced oppression and marginalization, the world- view of people with agent status is likely to be seen as contributing to the maintenance of oppression, thereby exacerbating feelings of alienation and frustration. For people with target status, exposure to bias or ignorance that rationalizes unearned privilege and oppression can be a reenactment of what is already a source of pain and pressure. This is fur- ther magnified when such discussions take place in groups comprised of a preponderance of agents and very few people who are societal targets.

Differing developmental levels of consciousness about social identity further strain difficult conversations. People who are targets usually have a much clearer vision of the social, institutional and interpersonal sources of their oppression than do agents. This can foster different levels of awareness about privilege and oppression, which often become part of a person's identity. Within groups there are also varying levels of social identity, for example, some white people have done a great deal of think- ing about white racism, while others barely know that it exists. Also, people have mixed and complex dimensions of their identities that inter- sect and interact. Thus a middle-class, white lesbian may be targeted due to her gender and sexual orientation while enjoying privilege due to her race and class. Ultimately, people with agent status will, ideally, go through a process of deconstructing their privileged identity and recon- structing non-supremacist identities. For targets the task is to develop a positive identity without internalizing harmful negative stereotypes (Cross, 1991; Helms, 1990; Salett & Kaslow, 1994). Considering these different tasks and different levels of identity development, it is not surprising that there is tremendous potential for pain and misunderstanding in dialogues about difference.

386 MILLER, DONNER, AND FRASER

CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE CAN TALK AND WHAT TO DO WHEN WE BECOME STUCK

There are no quick fixes or easy solutions to the inhibitory mechanisms we have described. However, we and other educators/practitioners have found ways to prepare the ground for fruitful conversations across differ- ence, norms that further what Stone et al. (1999) term "learning conversations," and interventions that help when conversations become stuck. These suggestions do not guarantee to eliminate interpersonal con- flict and misunderstanding; there is never a complete absence or risk or assurance of safety when talking across difference, but they improve the odds. We will focus particularly on groups talking across difference although the principles are also applicable to conversations between individuals. Our suggestions are applicable to classrooms, collegial relationships in agencies, and clinical work with clients.

1. Striving to create egalitarian space. This initial goal may sound like a contradiction in light of what we have stated about unequal social power and privilege. However, appreciating these inequities suggests steps that can be taken to avoid recreating them in conversational spaces such as classrooms. If a course is going to focus on race and racism, it is inadvisable to have a class of 22 individuals, with only 2 or 3 students of color. This is a set-up for all participants as it symbolizes the experience people have in many social situations, a pre- dominance of white people with fewer people of color, trying to talk about racism. This problematic dynamic is further exacerbated if the professor is white.

We recommend that when groups talk across difference, attempts are made to insure parity in numbers between people with targeted and priv- ileged status, particularly in the dimension that is the focus of the group. For example, in a class on racism, parity of group composition would be based on race and ethnicity, not on sexual orientation or social class. We believe that at a minimum there should be a critical mass of targeted peo- ple in the group, which in our experience is at least 1/3 of the participants. Although pedagogically ideal, this is not always possible due to federal restrictions that prohibit assigning people to classes on the basis of race or gender. Our suggestions in Section 5 below offer some ideas applica- ble for groups where the focus is on social difference and there are only a few group members with targeted social identities.

TALKING WHEN TALKING IS TOUGH 387

Groups do not run by themselves and difficult conversations fare better when there is clear leadership. Leaders and facilitators help to hold the process and can create a structure and process that fosters dialogue. We have found that co-facilitation, with one person having targeted status and one with agent status, helps to further productive conversations across dif- ference. This allows all participants to see themselves represented in the facilitators, and allows the facilitators to role model respectful and pro- ductive conversations across their differences. This also symbolically shares power between people with different social identities.

2. Establishing a Dialogic Framework. Establishing norms and guidelines for discussion creates a framework and container for engaging in conversations across difference. Although such rules may appear to be simple and common sense, it is useful to have them group generate, and state them affirmatively. Some basic principles that foster better conversations are:

• Confidentiality within the group.

• Sharing time and not taking up too much air space.

• Speaking for oneself and not representing one's social group - making "I" statements.

• Listening carefully to others.

• Striving for open-mindedness.

• Challenging behavior and ideas but not attacking the person

who states the ideas.

Seeking discussions that open up and explore complexity rather than support reductionism and sloganeering.

Many of these principles foster a "learning conversation" (Stone, et al., 1999), a discussion where participants do not claim to know all the answers, where one group is not "teaching" another, where the object is not to convince but to explore, where the goal is to seek the gray areas and spaces of ambivalence (Becker, Chasin, Chasin, Herzig, & Roth, 1995; Chasin, Herzig, Roth, Chasin, Becker, & Stains Jr., 1996). This involves deep listening, genuine curiosity, empathy, recognition and acknowledgement, and willingness to take responsibility. Implicit in this is a commitment to self-reflection, to knowing oneself and accepting imperfections in self and others.

388 MILLER, DONNER, AND FRASER

3. Understanding the historical, social and political context in which the conversation occurs. Since challenging conversations across difference do not occur in a vacuum, participants do not leave their social selves at the door. Rather, such conversations draw upon social identities, which are grounded in historical and material social conditions. It is helpful, therefore, to pro- vide information about the historical, political and social context of issues and identities. For example, if the topic is sexual orientation, it is impor- tant for group members to be aware of laws, social policies, cultural and religious norms, and patterns of discrimination. Sexual orientation is not simply about differences in choices, values and life-styles.

When there are dialogues between groups that have had historical pat- terns of conflict, such as Arabs and Jews (Bargal & Bar, 1994) or African Americans and Koreans in the U.S. (Norman, 1994), it is helpful to have each group share their historical and social narrative and to listen care- fully to the other group's competing or contradictory story. Failing this, it is often difficult, if not impossible, for individuals and groups to listen carefully and fully participate. This is especially true if they feel their group narrative has been marginalized or silenced.

4. Introducing concepts that predict and render meaningful common challenges. It can be helpful for participants to cognitively grasp common challenges to conversations across difference. This can anticipate frequent sources of conflict, and provide explanatory social constructions. For example, when discussing race and racism, it can be very useful to share paradigms about racial identity formation (Cross, 1991; Helms, 1990; Hardiman, 1994). Or, if the focus is more on cultural difference, a discussion about world- views and cultural values (Sue & Sue, 1999) is helpful. When there is group conflict, a common defense mechanism involves dehumanizing the other group and projecting negative and unacceptable aspects of self on to the "other" (Miller & Schamess, 2000). Recognizing this tendency makes is possible to explore and examine such projections should they occur during a difficult conversation. Stone et al. (1999) have offered a very helpful tripartite framework for recognizing stuck conversations: 1) There are disagreements about content; 2) There are emotions that accompany the disagreements; and 3) The disagreements challenge the social identities of participants.

In addition to sharing concepts that illuminate challenging conversa- tional dynamics, it is also useful to view tough conversations as part of a

TALKING WHEN TALKING IS TOUGH 389

process, one that has a history and a future. Everything need not be resolved in one discussion. Work has occurred before the conversation and will continue afterwards; we don't reach "there" but we can move in the right direction. And just as people's identities move through a developmental process, so do conversations that are generated by shifts in consciousness and self-awareness.

5. Having mechanisms for dealing with stuck conversations. Challenging conversations across difference will inevitably have moments of uncertainty, frustration and conflict. While it is helpful to predict this, so it is seen as normal rather than aberrant, it is also necessary for facilitators to have ideas about how to intervene. We have implemented a number of helpful strategies in such situations that are also useful in groups with very few people who have targeted social identities:

• Dividing into caucus groups. If the discussion is about racism, it can be useful to divide into homogenous caucus groups where participants share some perspectives by virtue of their social identities, and to pose specific questions to each group. Groups can then return and share what they discussed with the larger group. This permits exploration of challenging issues while decreasing personal vulnerability.

• Using "fishbowls" with larger groups. This involves having a smaller circle within a larger group (7-8 people) so that highly charged material can be explored in a more intimate setting, but is witnessed by the entire group. It helps if fishbowls always have an empty chair so members of the larger group can filter into the fishbowl, and members of the smaller group can return to the larger group (Miller & Donner, 2000).

• Going around the circle. Often when there is conflict a few participants become locked into an antagonistic or alienating dynamic while other members of the group become bystanders. It can be helpful for facilitators to intervene and ask a question that responds to themes embedded in the conflictual dynamic, asking each group member to briefly respond. If this intervention is employed, it is important to have a "pass" rule, meaning that any person can decline to speak so no group members are forced to participate. When using this approach it can be useful to think of questions that seek out areas of ambiguity and uncertainty (Becker et al, 1995; Chasin et al, 1996).

390 MILLER, DONNER, AND FRASER

• Utilizing structured exercises or role-plays can be helpful if the overall group process seems stuck, if participants appear to be overly hesitant,or if participants are only responding to in a highly intellectualized, abstract fashion.

6. Considering solutions as well as problems. While a thorough exploration of problems and roadblocks is essential, it is also important to consider solutions and ways to move forward. Research on racial dialogues has indicated that people of color will con- sider such conversations worthwhile if there is more than just talk and if the discussion leads to concrete actions against racism (Miller & Donner, 2000; Study Circles Resource Center, 1998). Thorny and sensitive dis- cussions about issues of social identity can leave participants feeling dispirited and overwhelmed if the discussion ends in a thicket of unre- solved problems; thereby fostering tendencies to blame rather than take responsibility. Complex and difficult conversations are productive when they inspire hope and a commitment to action. As Primo Levi (1985) stated in his novel about resisting Nazi atrocities, to struggle is to be alive, even against overwhelming odds. To consider solutions, contemplate and take action is to maintain hope and a sense of efficacy.

7. Tie tough conversations to organizational commitments. Challenging conversations about identity and oppression take place in an organizational and institutional context. This context frames the conver- sation, giving it meaning and purpose. Organizational commitments to confront and challenge oppression often create the conditions for having such conversations and, recursively, transform the organizational culture. It is important for sponsoring organizations to demonstrate their commitment to institutional change, social justice, self-examination, and reevaluation of mission, policies, ideology, and practices. This may heighten tensions and frustrations within an organization, and necessitate a commitment to engaging in difficult conversations as part of a broader organizational change process.

CONCLUSION

Talking when talking is tough is not always pleasant and, it entails significant risks. However the perils of not having such conversations are even greater and ultimately more damaging to individuals and groups. A difficult conversation is not an end in itself, but will hopefully contribute

TALKING WHEN TALKING IS TOUGH 391

to better understanding, different ways of viewing oneself and others, and organizational, social and political commitments to work toward change and social justice. If such conversations are occurring in the classroom and agency lunchroom, there is a greater likelihood that they will also be taking place in the consulting room. There are no foolproof or risk-free ways of conducting such conversations and there are no guarantees that they will be beneficial or successful. In this paper, we have attempted to describe better ways of fostering substantive discussions about challenging and complex issues that are both personally meaningful and socially relevant.

REFERENCES

Bargal, D., & Bar, H. (1994). The encounter of social selves: Intergroup workshops for Arab and Jewish youth. Social Work with Groups, J7(3), 39-59.

Becker, C , Chasin, L., Chasin, R., Herzig, M., & Roth, S. (1995). From stuck debate to new conversation on controversial issues: A report from the public conversations project. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 7(1/2), 143-161.

Buber, M. (1957). / and thou. NY: Scribner.

Carter, R.T. (1995). The influence of race and racial identity in psychotherapy: Toward ajacially inclusive model.JiY: Wiley.

Chasin, R., Herzig, M., Roth, S., Chasin, L., Becker, C , & Stains Jr., R.R. (1996). From diatribe to dialogue on divisive public issues: Approaches drawn from family therapy. Mediation Quarterly, 13(4), 323-345.

Coser, L. A. (1956). The functions of social conflict. NY: The Free Press.

Cross, W.E. (1991). Shades of black: Diversity in African-American identity. Philadelphia: Temple.

Davis, N. J. (1992). Teaching about inequality: Student resistance, paralysis, and rage. Teaching Sociology, 20, 232-238.

Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, germs and steel: The fate of human societies. NY: W.W. Norton & Co.

Feagin, J.R. (1999). Excluding blacks and others from housing. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 4(3), 79-91.

Fisher, R.J. (1990). The social psychology of intergroup and international conflict resolution. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Goodman, D. J. (2001). Promoting diversity and social justice: Educating people from privileged groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (1987). Us and them: The psychology of ethnonationalism. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Hardiman, R. (1994). White racial identity development. In E.P.Salett & D.R. Kaslow (Eds.), Race, ethnicity and self: Identity in multicultural perspective (pp. 117-KO). Washington, DC: National Multicultural Institute.

Hardiman, R., & Jackson, B. (1997). Conceptual foundations of social justice courses. In. M. Adams, L.A. Bell & P. Griffen (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: Ajourcebook (pp. 16-29). New York: Routledge.

392 MILLER, DONNER, AND FRASER

Hardy, K.V., & Lazlaffy, T.A. (1995). Therapy with African Americans and the phenomenon of rage. In Session: Psychotherapy in Practice, 1(4), 57-70.

Helms, J. (1990). Biack and white racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Helms, J.A., & Cook (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and psychotherapy: Theory and process. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Levi, P. (1985). If not now, when? New York: Penguin.

Massey, D.A., & Denton, N.A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Mclntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom, July/Aug., 10-12.

Miller, J. (1997). Societal abuse and neglect of children: What do these phenomena tell us about ourselves? Smith Studies in Social Work, 67 (2), 197-212.

Miller, J. (2003). Societal abuse and neglect of children. In J. Miller, I. Rodriguez Martin & G. Schamess (Eds.), School violence and children in crisis: School and_community based strategies for social workers and counselors (pp. 85-99). Denver: Love Publishing.

Miller, J., & Donner, S. (2000). More than just talk: The use of racial dialogues to combat racism. Social work with groups, 23 (1), 31-53.

Miller, J., & Schamess, G. (2000). The discourse of denigration and the creation of other. The Journal of Sociology and Social Wefare, 27(3), 39-62.

The National Academy of Sciences (2002). Unequal treatment: Confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. http://www.nap.edU/openbook/030908265x/html/.html.

Norman, A.J. (1994). Black-Korean relations: From desperation to dialogue, or from shouting and shooting to sitting and talking. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 5(2), 87-99.

Ridley, C.R. (1995). Overcoming unintentional racism in counseling and therapy. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.

Roberts, S. (2000, July 16). The way we live now: Round table writing about race (and trying to talk about it). The New York Times, Sect. 6, p. 11.

Salett, E.P., & Kaslow, D.R. (Eds.) (1994). Race, ethnicity and self: Identity in multicultural perspective (pp. 117-140). Washington, DC: National Multicultural Institute.

Shipler, D. (1997). A country of strangers: Blacks and whites in America. NY: Knopf.

Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. NY: Viking._

Study Circles Resource Center (1998). Year 1-1997: A report on the focus groups. Pomfret, CT: Author.

Sue, D.W., & Sue, D. (Eds.) (1999). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice (3''" ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Tatum, B. (1997). "Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?" and other conversations about race. NY: Basic Books.

Triandafyllidou, A. (1998). National identity and the 'other.' Ethnic and racial studies 21(4), 593-612.

Wah, L.M. (1994). The color of fear (video). Berkeley, CA: Stir Fry Productions.