Скачать книгу

al., 2017). The highest U.S. poverty rates are found among American Indians at 24.2% (Kaiser Family Foundation, n.d.). These statistics underscore the intertwined nature of race with social class in the United States as the result of historic events such as the transatlantic slave trade, the seizing of lands from native people, and institutional barriers to wealth creation (Lui, Robles, Leondar‐Wright, Brewer, & Adamson, 2006).

      BY THE NUMBERS

      Year after year, economic statistics demonstrate the continuing U.S. racial wealth gap, a living legacy of the binding of wealth creation to race at the time of the nation's founding. At that time, only White people could legally accumulate wealth and property; African Americans, on the other hand, were property. For over two centuries, African Americans were not permitted to collect any of the income that resulted from their own labor; that money went instead into White pockets, to be accumulated and passed on to White heirs. What is the magnitude of the wealth gap today? In 2019, the median American White family had approximately $171,000 in net wealth, while the median African American family had approximately $17,000—or about one dime for every White dollar (Based on Broyles, 2019).

      THE DAMAGING IMPACT OF POVERTY

      Life in poverty means surviving obstacles like low wages, unemployment, underemployment, little or no ownership of property or other wealth, and lack of reliable food reserves. Meeting even the most basic family needs is precarious, and the resources and opportunities that people at other income levels take for granted—such as safe housing, clean water, and adequate health care—cannot be taken for granted. Moreover, people living in poverty are subject to daily experiences of discrimination and bias. People at higher social class positions often (consciously or unconsciously) stereotype the poor as being lazy, inferior, drug‐abusing, or unintelligent, and frequently seek to distance themselves from the poor as a result (Lott, 2002). These stereotypes are manifestations of classist bias, and when people in poverty internalize society's widespread anti‐poor attitudes, feeling of self‐blame and inferiority can develop. Therapists who are not alert to the possibility of internalized classism may unwittingly attribute these feelings entirely to the individual or cultural characteristics of the client.

      THERAPEUTIC CLASS BIAS

      The existence of societal bias against people who are poor has been well documented (APA Task Force on Socioeconomic Status, 2007; Smith, 2013), and therapists, of course, are not immune to harboring these attitudes as well. For example, research has demonstrated that clinicians tend to perceive clients who live in poverty more unfavorably than more affluent clients (as, for example, being more dysfunctional and making poorer progress in therapy). In the area of diagnosis, it has been found that an attribution of mental illness is more likely when a person's history suggests a lower rather than a higher socioeconomic class origin (Liu et al., 2006). Many studies demonstrate that clinicians who are given identical clinical vignettes tend to make more negative prognostic statements and judgments of greater maladjustment when the individual is said to come from a poor or working‐class background rather than from the middle class (Lee & Temerlin, 1970; Smith, Mao, Perkins, & Ampuero, 2011; Stein, Green, & Stone, 1972).

      In addition, the culture‐bound characteristics of mental health practice as with regard to communities of color includes dimensions that are also relevant for social class experiences; the assumptions underlying therapeutic activities are permeated by middle‐class values that do not always apply to life in poverty. For example, appointments made weeks in advance with short, weekly, 50‐minute timeframes are not consistent with the necessity of surviving chaotic circumstances and seeking immediate solutions to pressing problems. Poor people have learned from experience that endless waits are associated with publicly‐funded medical clinics, police stations, and government agencies, where one can frequently wait hours for a 10‐ to 15‐minute appointment, and arriving promptly does little good. Therapists, however, rarely understand these aspects of life in poverty and may be quick to see late arrival as a sign of resistance or indifference (Schnitzer, 1996).

      Working effectively with clients who are poor requires several major preconditions (Smith, 2010). First, therapists must spend time understanding their own class‐based biases and prejudices. Confronting one's own classism can help detect the influence of commonplace social stereotypes of poor people, which can vary in association with race. For example, poor White people can be seen through the lens of “White trash” stereotypes, while poor Black women have been stigmatized with the racist stereotype of “welfare queens” (Smith & Redington, 2010). These widespread social biases can affect the diagnosis and treatment of clients who live in poverty. Second, it is essential that counselors understand how poverty affects the lives of people who lack financial resources, and behaviors that are associated with the survival of poverty should not be pathologized. Finally, poverty and the economic disparities that are the root causes of emotional distress among the poor demands that therapists apply a social justice context to their case conceptualization (Smith, 2010).

      Several conclusions are suggested at this point: (a) poverty and classism present overwhelming stressors that undermine the mental and physical health of clients; (b) a failure to understand the life circumstance of clients who lack financial resources, along with unintentional class bias, may affect the ability of helping professionals to deliver appropriate mental health services; and (c) classism can make its appearance in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of lower‐socioeconomic‐class clients.

      It is critical for therapists to have a basic understanding of the generic characteristics of counseling and psychotherapy and their connections to foundational assumptions within mainstream European American values and preferences. With this understanding in mind, we can prevent ourselves from unconsciously operating from this values system in a way that discounts and/or discriminates against clients with other cultural backgrounds. At the same time, overgeneralizing and stereotyping are also ever‐present dangers. For example, the listings of

Скачать книгу