In today’s world, it seems that we are all surrounded by dilemmas– having to choose between different values. It’s everywhere we turn–it can be difficult to navigate the competing values and even more so when it seems to be pervasive in your field.
International Psychology
I have just spent a little over a week in South Africa, as part of my doctoral program. I am currently working on my PhD in international psychology and much like other schools of psychology, it requires open-mindedness and tolerance (it’s hard to help people get better, if they know you’re only judging them for everything they’ve done in the past or are in the present).
So, what makes international psychology different than the rest? Well, general psychology looks at the individual and social psychology looks at groups; but, international psychology looks at cultures. And with my concentration (Organizations and Systems), I focus on nonprofits, government agencies and partnerships with communities. Although, my interest is in research. Right now, you most likely have a blend of feelings, but mostly being impressed and bored at the same time (I apologize). Setting aside the specifics of the field, the truth is that the values of any field might force us to be placed into a position where we might feel like we’re expected to compromise our own values. So what are the values of international psychology that are so questionable?
Values of IP
One of the few things that most people know about any psychology is that it typically attracts a more liberal crowd. In working with other cultures, you are guaranteed to encounter beliefs that are not yours, religions with different gods, and values that you find questionable. But, you have to be able to work with them no matter how different, you have to focus on problems they identify as important, working towards solutions that they actually want. We can only partner with people, and we can’t force our own definition of the problem. So what’s the problem?
My Values
Of course, none of these values seem particularly disturbing. They actually sound more like being a good human being, treating others like they’re human beings. How could that possibly conflict with my own values? It’s easy to say that you want to tolerate everyone, until you find something that is intolerable. For example, the general opinion in international psychology is that if the community has any cultural traditions that you find bothersome, you are to take a neutral stance. Otherwise, you lose all rapport, distance yourself from them and devalue their culture…. Child brides, female genital mutilation, pagan religions, polygamy …. We are to advocate, if we are invited in to advocate. But it’s hard to look at these values and keep a look of tolerance on your face.
These are the more extreme examples, of course. But, as a religious person, being expected to not verbalize any disagreement with animism, witchcraft, voodoo… and being expected to be selective in sharing your own faith– it’s existence or specifics. It can be a difficult boundary: Staying true to my own faith, while also having a tolerance for others’. It takes intention to even begin to succeed in either, let alone both.
How to Stay Grounded
So this brings us to the question of how to approach this dilemma. Bear in mind, I have yet to perfect this, and there are still colleagues that assume I hate everyone different from myself, because I’m a Christian, white, American… Although, I do understand why they would make this assumption, it also means that they already know the dilemma I’m faced with, before they actually occur. I certainly don’t succeed all the time, but it is consistently getting easier. I’m having more frequent engaging conversations with classmates, and hopefully, changing some stereotypes.
- Know what you believe. Don’t wait until you’re faced with a dilemma to figure out your belief system. Have a solid awareness of where your values lie.
- Know why you believe. It can be tempting to say that you agree or disagree with something, but if you had to explain your position, you wouldn’t have an answer. If you’re planning on engaging in a conversation with someone, and you can’t even trace your own belief, you won’t make it very far. Disagree with astrology, the homosexual lifestyle, or another value? You should be able to give a clear line of thought.
- Back everything up to the Word. As you formulate your answers to the previous point, you’ll quickly realize that there were addendums you made to scripture, or issues that are biblically non-negotiable.
- Ask yourself this important question: Is what you’re saying bringing that person closer to having a relationship with God or creating a barrier? It is tempting to share something, purely because it’s your opinion. It is even more tempting to share something purely because it’s true. But the truth said at the wrong time, or in the wrong way, means that you were probably not sharing it because it was truth, but because you wanted to say something. The goal behind everything we say or do should be about God, and not ourselves– we are not called to make sure everyone knows our opinion about everything.
- Listen to the Holy Spirit. If I feel like saying something, that isn’t a good enough reason to speak. If I feel as though God wants me to talk, I do. Only what I feel He wants to– no additional commentary. And if I don’t feel God compelling me to speak, then I don’t.
I’ve begun to gain rapport with my classmates, and have uncomfortable conversations in the best way possible. The discomfort can make it that much more difficult to engage in conversation, but listening first means that people are much more apt to listen. I hope this helps in some way, but if you have any strategies you use, I would welcome the feedback.
