Constructions and Enactments of Whiteness: A Discursive Analysis

Constructions and enactments of whiteness:
a discursive analysis
Jennifer Wallis
a
and Reenee Singh
b
Systemic therapists have argued that it is important to re-examine issues
about white identities if they are to develop cultural competence and
cultural sensitivity. Despite this, few studies have explored whiteness in
systemic psychotherapy. This small-scale qualitative study therefore
explores how a group of white systemic psychotherapists (trainers and
trainees) construct whiteness, how these constructions or discourses facili-
tate or constrain talk about whiteness and how this inuences what thera-
pists do in therapy. The research method used was focus group
discussions and an action research approach. The data were analysed
using Foucauldian discourse analysis and three main discourses were
made apparent: whiteness as an invisible norm, political correctness
and systemic therapy discourses. These discourses are described and the
implications, discussed.
Introduction
Mental health practice in the UK has been reported to discriminate
against black and other ethnic minorities in a number of ways, despite
practitioners claims to be colour blind (Fernando, 2003). In addition,
minority ethnic groups have also been found to be marginalized and
excluded from psychological therapy services (Fatimilehin and Dye,
2003; Williams et al., 2006). Thus, the equity of services providing
psychological therapies is questioned.
The imperative to improve this aspect of services is underscored by
the legal framework in the UK, for example, the Equality Act (2010),
which simplies the law by bringing together all existing anti-
discriminatory legislation. This Act prohibits unfair treatment on the
basis of race and eight other protected characteristics and requires
that public bodies embed equality considerations into day to day work.
a
Consultant Clinical Psychologist, Berkshire Foundation National Health Service
Trust, CAMHS, 3 Craven Road, Reading, RG7 1ES. E-mail: jennifer.wallis@
berkshire.nhs.uk.
b
Consultant Systemic Psychotherapist, Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust,
Tavistock Centre.
bs_bs_banner
Journal of Family Therapy (2012) :
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6427.2012.00602.x
2012 The Authors
Journal of Family Therapy 2012 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice. Published by
Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA
02148, USA.
This context provides a renewed impetus for health professionals to
have detailed knowledge of and sensitivity towards race and cultural
differences, although this has been highlighted for some time
(Littlewood, 2000; Pinderhughes, 1989). However, the focus on
knowledge of different groups can lead to stereotyping and overgen-
eralizing (Dyche and Zayas, 1995). Moreover, racism cannot be
ignored in the struggle to bring about culturally sensitive practice
(Fernando, 2003).
Systemic approaches to developing cultural competence have
emphasized both the importance of cultural knowledge and a
re-examination of the therapists own experiences, cultural identity,
values, assumptions and spirituality (Aponte, 1996; Barratt et al.,
1999; Hardy and Laszloffy, 1995). Thus, the personal development of
the therapist in relation to race and culture has been emphasized
(Dutton et al., 1999).
Despite a developing focus on the use of the self (Hardham, 1996;
Real, 1990) and the therapeutic relationship (Flaskas, 2004) in
systemic psychotherapy, the whiteness of the therapist has not,
until recently, received much attention. The criticism of how white
people view our/themselves in general may also apply to systemic
psychotherapists:
As long as race is something only applied to non-white peoples, as long
as white people are not racially seen or named, they/we function as a
human norm. Other people are raced, we are just people. (Dyer, 1997,
p. 1)
In the area of whiteness the systemic eld has been lagging behind
other approaches. For example, in the training of counsellors the
development of cultural competencies has included a focus on white
self-awareness and developing a secure racial identity (Helms, 1984;
Lago, 2006; Ryde, 2009; Sue and Sue, 2003; Tuckwell, 2002). In
addition, there is an extensive body of literature and research on
white studies in a wide range of disciplines outside psychological
therapies (Twine and Gallagher, 2008). The importance of studying
the topic of whiteness is that it offers the possibility of reposition(ing)
the critical gaze of race talk (Alexander, 2004, p. 667) from others to
self, acknowledging that white is a colour too (Nolte, 2007, p. 381).
There are however, difculties to be negotiated, for example, the risk
of essentializing whiteness (that is, treating is as if it has a true essence)
(Twine and Gallagher, 2008); the cultural context of colour-blind
ideology (Lewis, 2004, p. 624) and the danger that white issues
2 Jennifer Wallis and Reenee Singh
2012 The Authors
Journal of Family Therapy 2012 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
become central in dialogues about race and racism (Alexander, 2004;
Twine and Gallagher, 2008).
Positioning of the primary author
My personal interest in this topic arises from my history as a whitish
(Breytenbach, 1993) South African, where race and racism was a
prominent theme in everyday and professional relationships. My
experience as an individual from a privileged white minority in a
context where most people were black has undoubtedly inuenced
my reading of interactions and this research. Thus, I draw on contra-
dictory experiences of standing against the racism of my own cultural
white group and the shame of racist accusations. Against this back-
ground, it seemed to me that there has been little discussion of colour
and culture and their impact on our therapeutic relationships in my
context of work, the National Health Service in the UK. While rec-
ognizing that I might be oversensitive to the issue, I nevertheless
found that the topic of racism erupted in a group relations training
event aimed at understanding conscious and non-conscious group
processes. This convinced me that race and colour are complex and
emotive issues that can be difcult to discuss and deserve further
exploration. In discussion of these issues with my research supervisor
(RS), I also became aware that I had no idea how other white British,
white African or white-other people thought about their identities.
Dening whiteness
Dening race is complicated in part by the schism that exists between
biological and socio-political dimensions of race (Hardy and Laszloffy,
1994, p. 5). Carter (1995) combines both aspects and denes race as:
a socio-political designation in which individuals are assigned to a par-
ticular group based on presumed biological or visible characteristics such
as skin colour, physical features and, in some cases, language. (p. 15)
Hardy and Laszloffy (1994) argue that although skin colour is only
one of several physical characteristics dening racial identity, it is the
most potent. Skin colour inuences all social interactions, shaping
who participates in a process and how, and is related to social privilege
and power (Hardy and Laszloffy, 1994, p. 6). Frankenberg (1993)
used the term whiteness to describe how race shapes white womens
lives and argued that it has a set of linked dimensions:
Constructions and enactments of whiteness 3
2012 The Authors
First, whiteness is a location of structural advantage, of race privilege.
Second, it is a standpoint, a place from which white people look at
ourselves, at others, and at society. Third, whiteness refers to a set of
cultural practices that are usually unmarked and unnamed. (p. 1)
Research on whiteness in interdisciplinary elds
While there is extensive research on whiteness in interdisciplinary
studies (see Twine and Gallagher, 2008), Frankenbergs (1993) study
of the social construction of whiteness remains a landmark. She
explored the relationship between thirty white women and racism in
the USA and identied three discourses: (i) essentialist racism where
the emphasis is on race difference and biological inequality; (ii)
colour-blindness, which evokes an essential sameness, described as
colour evasiveness and linked to power evasiveness and (iii) differ-
ence or race cognizance, where the autonomy of culture, values and
aesthetic standards are recognized. Despite differences in time and
place, these discourses were relevant to the study reported here.
How have issues relevant to whiteness been developed in
systemic psychotherapy?
The systemic theoretical emphasis on context offers the possibility of
considering race, culture and social inequalities, and some models
have addressed the impact of social realities on gender, race, class and
sexual orientation. However, feminist critiques of systemic psycho-
therapy have been inuential in highlighting a relative lack of empha-
sis on the sociocultural context, gender inequalities and power
imbalances (MacKinnon and Miller, 1987). Hardy and Laszloffy
(1994) argued that the initial focus of power imbalances was on
gender rather than on race. Considerations of gender-related privi-
lege led McIntosh (1998) to consider that white privilege might be
denied and protected in ways similar to that of male privilege.
In the UK the Confederation of Family Therapy Training Institu-
tions working party reported on theoretical and practice ideas for
developing cultural competence in systemic psychotherapy (Barratt
et al., 1999). This group argued that systemic theoretical frameworks
should include thinking about whiteness and nding ways to chal-
lenge racism. McDowell and Jeris (2004) 10-year literature review
(19992001) of articles in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy
suggested that marital and family therapy practice is becoming more
informed with respect to issues of race and racism. This review noted
2012 The Authors
a few articles that specically discussed issues of whiteness, such as
white racial identity issues (Constantine et al. 2001), white privilege
and class disadvantage (Killian, 2001) and lack of white racial aware-
ness (Killian, 2001; Nelson et al. 2001). More recently, Burton et al.
(2010) critiqued a broad range of the scholarly literature on families of
colour relevant for family therapists. The reviewers noted that a small
body of literature on the racialization of whites grew in the decade
20002010. Burton et al. (2010) comment that the discourse on white-
ness has begun to dismantle the idea that only people of colour have
race or ethnicity and this had opened the door for questions to be
asked about how white race is experienced, processed and transmitted
in white families.
In systemic psychotherapy a few small-scale, discursive studies have
highlighted the issue of whiteness (Dempster, 2001; Nolte, 2007;
Wallis, 2009). However, the focus on whiteness does not appear to
have been explicitly taken up in systemic psychotherapy practice until
recently. A conference held in 2008 by the Institute of Family Therapy
in London indicated that the topic of whiteness was being explored by
systemic practitioners (see Colmer et al., 2009). Related to this theme,
an ongoing international narrative therapy project exploring privi-
lege and dominance (including white privilege) is being coordinated
through the Dulwich Centre in Australia
1
(n.d.). Thus, developments
in systemic psychotherapy, narrative approaches to therapy and
studies on whiteness from the interdisciplinary eld have informed
this research.
Rationale for the study
Developing cultural competence and cultural sensitivity seems to
require that practitioners re-examine issues about our
2
own racial
identities, including white identities (Barratt et al.,1999). My aims in
researching this topic were to explore the discourses white systemic
psychotherapy trainers and trainees use to construct whiteness and
the effects of these discourses on therapy. This led to the following
research questions:
1
Inspired by Michael White and David Epston, the Dulwich Centre is a training centre for
narrative approaches to therapy and community work.
2
In this article I have associated myself with white practitioners and therefore refer to
our identities.
2012 The Authors
1. How is whiteness constructed in a group of white systemic psycho-
therapy trainers and trainees?
2. How do these constructions or discourses constrain and facilitate
the talk about and enactment of whiteness in therapy?
This article is based on a small-scale, qualitative study (Wallis, 2009).
For a full discussion of the research method, analysis and discussion of
the limitations, see Wallis (2009). The research method and analysis
are briey described here, however the focus of this article is on the
ndings and implications for practice.
Research method
The method used to collect data was focus group discussions (Wilkin-
son, 2008) within an action research approach (Reason and Rowan,
1981; Treleaven, 2001). The method of analysis was Foucauldian
discourse analysis (Willig, 2003, 2008). The research method was
framed within an action research approach, emphasizing phases of
thinking, action and reection (Reason and Rowan, 1981). Focus
group discussions were held with a group of white systemic trainees
and trainers. The decision to hold homogenous group discussions was
based on the thinking that it was important for white practitioners to
do their own work on the topic (Dempster, pers. comm. 2009; Pewe-
wardy, 2004).
Two research meetings were held with the trainee group (focus
groups 1 and 2) to enable time for action and reection between
the two focus groups. One meeting was held with a group of
trainers (focus group 3) mainly because of time constraints. To
facilitate action I asked the trainee group towards the end of
the rst meeting the question: Is this [talking about colour] some-
thing that you want to think about more or act on in therapy or
not?
Two reective conversations were held with a consultation group of
trainees of mixed ethnicities to contribute to my reexivity as
researcher. These discussions therefore contributed to relational-
reexivity (Burnham, 2005) a concept which, to my knowledge, has
not been applied in qualitative research. The research discussions
enabled white therapists to examine our own racial identities (Pewe-
wardy, 2004) while the consultation group of mixed ethnicities pro-
vided reection on the white experience. Figure 1 illustrates the
stages of the research process.
2012 The Authors
Participants
Eight trainees from the nal year of an MSc in systemic psychotherapy
and three trainers from the course volunteered to participate in the
study. Of the eleven participants, six described themselves as white-
British and ve as white-other; two were men and nine were women.
Data analysis
Foucauldian discourse analysis (FDA) provided the main analytical
frame for the analysis of the research. To reduce the data to manage-
2. Reflection
Meet consultation group
3. Action/encounter
Focus group 1: trainees
Focus group 3: trainers
(note: focus group number does not
reflect sequence of discussions)
1. Thinking
Read literature
Reflection
4. For trainees: reflect on practice
between focus group meetings
5. For researcher: meet with
consultation group
6. Action/encounter
Focus group 2: Follow-up with
Trainees
7. Thinking
Researcher re-reads
literature
8. Making sense
Write report
9. Communication and
reflection
Feedback from
participants
10. Communicate
Final report
Figure 1. Representation of the stages of the research process.
2012 The Authors
able chunks, a thematic analysis was used to code them (Potter and
Wetherell, 1987). A discourse refers to a set of meanings, metaphors,
representations, images, stories, statements and so on that in some
way together produce a particular version of events (Burr, 2003,
p. 64). The Foucauldian view of discourses is that they facilitate and
limit, enable and constrain what can be said, by whom, where and
when (Parker, 1992). The data analysis of this study was informed by
Willigs (2003, 2008) FDA approach. In summary, the analysis
explored participants discourses about whiteness, how these dis-
courses link to wider discourses in society, what the discourses achieve
(action orientation), how they position the therapist and others and
how they open up or close down opportunities for action and repro-
duce or subvert power relationships. This approach, emphasizing a
sociocultural analysis, seemed particularly relevant to this study on
whiteness.
Research ndings
A thematic analysis of participants discussions about whiteness,
identied ve themes: white identity, constructions of whiteness,
race and racism, colour difference and systemic therapy. Reading
and re-reading these themes and applying Willigs (2003, 2008)
analysis enabled broader sets of meanings to be made apparent
and suggested three discourses: whiteness as an invisible norm,
political correctness and systemic therapy discourse. The dis-
courses are the focus of the ndings that are reported in this
article. The three discourses, the relationships between these dis-
courses and the implications for therapy training and research, are
discussed.
Discourse: whiteness as an invisible norm
What is whiteness?
Nadine: I have no idea.
(Focus group 1: line 653)
Pat: Being called white, I am thinking actually, Im not, so Im think-
ing actually that paper on the table, that is white to me.... So
when people say whats your culture, I am sort of thinking I dont
know.... Whereas ifsomeone said to me, Dene the culture of
2012 The Authors
somebody else, I would have some ideas, but oddly about being white,
I dont.
(Focus group 1: lines 128129; 299301)
3
The whiteness as an invisible norm discourse was expressed in a
blankness about white identity. The naturalness or normativeness of
such assumptions is conveyed by John:
Its not necessarily that you believe in those things but they are part of
your uhm ahh part of your assumptive world, part of something youve
grown up with and just exists and therefore has legitimacy by virtue of
you having grown up with it as something that is there and should
naturally.
(Focus group 1: lines 462466)
This blankness means that white people do not have to think about
ourselves as a race and that we are a norm against which others are
somehow measured. The effect of white people positioning ourselves
as invisible means that others are positioned as highly visible. White-
ness as an invisible norm in society means that white people are
positioned as privileged: the privilege of not suffering racism and that
this is taken for granted as the way things are:
Cathy: Maybe the privilege that we have as white people, if you like, is
our privilege is that, is that we dont have to go around and suffer racism
on a daily basis like many other people do and thats actually something
that were privileged, so privileged that were not even aware of most of
the time.
The importance of this is that white privilege and power is often
unseen (or invisible) to white people. However, this experience of
white privilege has not necessarily always been true for white-others.
The complexity of the white-other identity is conveyed through the
experience of racism and dissociating from white privilege:
Mary: I still dont feel that although I am white; that I come from a
privileged position necessarily, which is a really odd thing to say. But I
think as a minority group (white-other), I have vivid memories, for
example, as a young child in school of being a victim of kind of racist
attacks.... My whiteness isnt about privilege.
3
A large font size and wide margins were used in the transcription to allow for space for
reective comments and analysis.
2012 The Authors
Whiteness as an invisible norm discourse, seems to position white-
others as not belonging and as marginal:
Rachel: Theres degrees of whiteness as well. People have often said to
me am I [another European nationality], they always try and nd me a
different country to my own. So there is, whiteness we are using it as one
term but there are shades of whiteness.
The existence of degrees and shades of whiteness reveal that within
whiteness there is some evaluation of who are whiter than others and
also who are more British than others. Thus, shades of whiteness may
denote layers of inclusion and exclusion. However, actively position-
ing oneself as white-other may create a distance from the negative
associations of being mainstream white British:
Hazel: I dont see myself as part of a monolith ... people [whom] I think
[of as] more mainstream white British because I just have a different
sense of belonging or not belonging to that.
Positioning oneself as white-other may be a positive choice for some.
However, as Rachel notes, our choices in relation to positioning may
relate to other differences and power:
Rachel: Peoples experience of whiteness will vary hugely depending on
gender, class, nancial status, because its related to power.
One effect of the discourse of whiteness as an invisible norm seemed
to be to close down talk about colour in favour of talking about
cultural differences:
Rachel: Would you actually say Im a white woman you see coz I think
I would express it in terms of difference, cultural difference.
Barbara: Thats where its clumsy for me, in that rst instance, because
it was naming colour as opposed to culture.
Hazel: Yes, exactly, youre black and Im white.
The process of talking about whiteness made it more visible and
diversied as a notion:
Nadine: among the things I cant hide is the colour of my skin.
2012 The Authors
Rachel: you cant assume that you know ... people have very different
relationships with their own whiteness.
Discussion of the discourse: whiteness as an invisible norm
In the research conversations whiteness as a monolithic notion was
problematized. As we talked whiteness seemed to become more diver-
sied and we became more visible to ourselves and to each other. The
contradictory experiences of both privilege and disadvantage for
white-others (Barratt et al., 1999) became apparent. Whiteness, ini-
tially described as a blankness, became present as a colour (Dyer,
1997, pp. 4546) that could be talked about. In this process, the norm
of whiteness began to be deconstructed and white-otherness as an
aspect of whiteness, seemed to become constructed. One effect of this
discourse, the invisible placing of white people on this norm, means
that whites can be
seen not to be represented to [our]themselves as whites, but as people
who are variously gendered, classed, sexualised and abled.
(Dyer, 1997, p. 3)
Thus, white people can choose whether culture or other differences
seem more relevant than colour. The privilege of being able to
choose which differences to highlight in the multiple layers of iden-
tity may reect the powerful positioning of whites as the norm.
The positioning of white people as an invisible norm means that
others may be repositioned as highly visible and under our gaze
(Alexander, 2004, p. 667). The whiteness as an invisible norm dis-
course therefore highlights the relationship between whiteness,
power and difference.
Discourse: political correctness
Rachel: There is an element of political correctness, sort of the spectre
looming over any discussion whether its about whiteness or not.
Political correctness seemed to be important in the representation of
whiteness. The term political correctness originally referred to
language that consciously tried to avoid racial, ethnic and gender
stereotyping (British Psychological Society, 2000). Historical associa-
tions of whiteness with power and oppression mean that current
2012 The Authors
race relationships are inevitably affected by white guilt, racism,
race anxiety (Burman, 2004, p. 301) and powerful emotions of
shame:
Nadine: As white British, English people we have othered so many other
people and just gone in and seen ourselves as superior. And I carry some
history.... I am thinking about how the English invaded Ireland, I am
thinking about how the English have colonized various other countries,
you know, the Empire.
Cathy: ... how that (the negative aspects of being white) positions you: if
youre white ... youre racist.
(Focus group 1: line 239)
Fears of offending others and being racist lead to self-policing and
freezing:
John: I might be engaging in unconscious racism and you have to
constantly police yourself because youre trying to be better and then
that can freeze up your mind to some extent, I think.
Applying an action research approach, I asked the trainee group an
action question about whether they wanted to think more about
colour in therapy and act on it, or not. This question evoked concerns
about the risks about colour and race (Jane, focus group 1: line
1529), worries about it being dangerous water (Rachel, focus group
1: line 1542) and the risk of being hurtful and damaging (Nadine,
focus group 1: line 1555). These extracts illustrate the high anxiety
that surrounds the topic. In a context of risk and danger with regard
to race, it is important to get it right and to be politically correct.
However, a difference of opinion about what political correctness is, is
discussed by Rachel and Cathy:
Rachel: in the spirit of political correctness things are meant to be neutral.
So if you are in any way noticing that somebody is black, what you saying
with that noticing, how do they experience you noticing?
In her argument Rachel refers to the systemic discourse of neutrality
(Selvini Palazzoli et al., 1980, p. 4). Rachels view seems to be that if
you notice race difference you may be implying that a racial hierarchy
of white superiority/black inferiority exists (the essentialist discourse
described by Frankenberg, 1993). This view is challenged by Cathy
2012 The Authors
who argues that recognizing colour as a difference, is politically
correct:
Cathy: I think we are now in a place where its politically correct to
actually name and not assume that were all, that color doesnt matter or
that sexuality doesnt matter or, I dont know, whatever doesnt matter.
Here, naming difference, perhaps reecting the race cognizance dis-
course (Frankenberg, 1993) is seen as being politically correct.
Discussion of political correctness discourse
The political correctness discourse was most marked by a debilitating
race anxiety and self-policing. This self-policing seems to exemplify
Foucaults notion of the disciplinary power in which populations are
controlled through their own self-monitoring processes (Burr, 2003).
Historical associations of whiteness with colonialism, oppression and
superiority contributes to race anxiety and guilt and may have a
detrimental effect on the therapeutic relationship. Guilt and shame
can create subtle pressure on those about whom one feels guilty to
absolve us (Ryde, 2009, p.100). Our anxieties may communicate to
clients the fact that race cannot be addressed and such anxieties may
ignore or invalidate their own experience (Pinderhughes, 1989).
Therapy might then be experienced as yet another racial micro-
aggression (Sue et al., 2007).
In talking about race and colour white practitioners risk being
positioned unintentionally in particular discourses, for example, rec-
ognizing race and colour differences risks implying race difference
based on biological inequality (an essentialist racism discourse, Frank-
enberg, 1993), which is clearly offensive and politically incorrect.
However, if we ignore colour (possibly reecting a colour-blind dis-
course) we avoid the impact of difference on peoples lives and evade
the power issues associated with these differences (Frankenberg,
1993), which can also be seen as politically incorrect.
In this study the discourse of political correctness seemed to para-
lyse therapists and lead to self-policing. The highly emotive content
of the political correctness discourse, that of anxiety, guilt and shame,
may constrain conversations about colour in deecting the focus
towards other less emotive differences. The divergent views expressed
on what is politically correct, highlighted the complexity of conversa-
tions about colour.
2012 The Authors
Systemic therapy discourse
Systemic therapy discourse highlighted theoretical aspects of the
Milan approach (neutrality), Post-Milan approaches (power, position-
ing, not-knowing, contexts of meaning, dominant discourses and
self-reexivity) (Campbell, 2003) and generic or common factors
(specically the therapeutic relationship) (Norcross, 2010). Systemic
discourse both facilitated and constrained talk about colour in
therapy.
The dilemmas explored relating to Post-Milan approaches were the
power of the therapist and whether to make use of therapist expertise
and knowledge (knowing) or not. Discomfort was expressed with the
therapist using a power position to impose ones own agenda:
Nadine: by kind of saying Im white and youre Black then what Im
actually doing is using that power position that I might have been put in.
(Nadine, focus group 1: lines 10351037)
Rachel: I want to work in a way that Im led more by the families agenda
and it feels more like my agenda then.
A constraint about talking about colour may relate to the perceived
power of the white therapist, the danger of the therapist imposing
her/his agenda rather than being client/family centred. Exploring
ideas about power and assumptions, Hazel refers to the notion of
not-knowing (Anderson and Goolishian, 1992):
Hazel: where the power is perceived to be rather than too many assump-
tions about it early on, even though in our minds the assumption, of
course we know for a fact, from our experience of living that colour and
money and class, but to not go in with all guns blazing on knowing.
The question of how systemic therapists use our knowledge and
power and the inuence of not-knowing, seems to be a tension.
Cathy expresses this tension humorously, saying:
Sorry, Im white, can you explain to me what its like to be ...
(Focus group 2: line 827).
The highest context marker or most important context (Pearce and
Cronen, 1980) may be the therapeutic relationship for some and for
others, the inuence of the societal context. The therapeutic relation-
ship could be negatively affected by naming colour:
2012 The Authors
Hazel: But, just the white black thing wouldnt seem to me to be the
language that Id use that Id be comfortable with that. Because its the
starkness about it, as though its still such a powerful dividing thing in the
room for me ... or were thinking weve already made a relationship these
people, weve gone beyond that being the thing that is relevant between
the two of us ... and I dont think thats a cowardly position, I dont think
that is just that we are embarrassed to do it. Theres a relationship now.
Questions remain as to who decides that there is a relationship now
and what is included and excluded from that relationship. The
dilemma is that the therapeutic relationship is embedded in the cul-
tural context which may still be experienced as racially hierarchical.
As Cathy reects: what they (clients) see inuences what your rela-
tionship then is (Focus group 2: lines 8487).
The importance of the societal aspect of context was expressed by
Kate:
Were all part of a wider context isnt it, where were aware of the
dominant discourses and I was thinking its our responsibility... that we
also have to engage with the debate... you know, kind of not being a
political activist as such but, yes, having some sort of engagement with
that.
Thus, given the cultural context of inequality and racism, it is consid-
ered the therapists responsibility to give voice to dominant discourses
impacting on the relationship.
Discussion of systemic therapy discourse
The importance of the therapeutic relationship is underlined by the
research estimating that it accounts for 30 per cent of change in
psychotherapy (Hubble et al., 1999). Talking about white and black
difference seemed to potentially threaten the therapeutic relationship.
This may suggest that a colour-blind approach is important in devel-
oping the therapeutic relationship. Pandya and Herlihys (2009) study
of perceptions of alliances among British South Asians found that
rather than specic cultural issues, aspects of the alliance needed
more attention: these are, safety in front of the therapist and emo-
tional connection to the therapist. Roy-Chowdhurys (2006) analysis of
talk in family therapy conrmed the importance of emotional
engagement for stronger therapeutic relationships. Hardy and
Laszloffy (1994) argue that in establishing a trusting therapeutic
2012 The Authors
relationship, clients perceptions of therapists racial sensitivity is
crucial. Cultural sensitivity and familiarity with cultural practices can
help with engagement, a stronger therapeutic alliance and therefore
outcome (Singh, 2007).
Heightened awareness that white practitioners may be positioned
(Campbell and Groenback, 2006) as white, privileged and potentially
racist (despite how white practitioners position ourselves), seemed an
important learning from the trainee focus group discussions. The
reciprocal positioning of both client and therapist is inuenced by
different discourses. The interplay of discourses and co-construction
or joint action of what clients and therapists do together may reect
a relational competence that Fruggeri (2012) argues is different from
the notion of the therapeutic alliance.
Although often used inaccurately, the not-knowing approach
advocated by Anderson and Goolishian (1988, 1992) refers to the
therapist suspending his or her own assumptions and attending
closely to the clients meanings. Flaskas (2004) argued that used
carefully and well, curiosity and not-knowingness should promote
empathetic connection with clients (p.17). Not knowing in the sense
of waiting to be informed by a client about their experiences of race
may really reect a position of cultural naivete (Dyche and Zayas,
1995). In the context of race and culture, Krause (2002) argues that a
not-knowing stance is not possible as culture inuences our assump-
tions and we will always make some assumptions and exclude others.
Given the complexity of discourse and power in therapeutic relation-
ships, Roy-Chowdhury (2006) suggests that therapist positioning of
both knowing and unknowing seems to lead to stronger therapeutic
relationships.
Decisions about what to include and exclude in therapeutic con-
versations reects the power of the therapist (Guilfoyle, 2003). Thera-
pists discussed discomfort with this position of power and the seeming
arbitrariness of deciding which difference to focus on: the highest
context marker. Perhaps this dilemma also reects the problems of
bias (Cecchin, 1987) in selecting differences rather than focussing on
the complex intersection of differences (Burman, 2004). In addition,
having foregrounded difference in systemic discourse, practitioners
may have neglected working with sameness (Burnham and Harris,
2002) and our common humanity. Systemic therapy discourses, the
discourse of whiteness as an invisible norm and political correctness,
inter-relate and combine to inuence participants positions on white-
ness and talking about whiteness in therapy.
2012 The Authors
Discussion
This discussion considers the interrelatedness of discourses and impli-
cations of the study.
The inter-relatedness of discourses
Systemic theory is concerned with difference and context and there-
fore talk about colour is potentially easily integrated into this
approach (Erskine, 2002). However, this research highlighted dis-
courses which both constrained and facilitated talk about whiteness.
The discourse whiteness as an invisible norm reveals the com-
plexities of white people thinking about being a particular colour and
a race. Others may position practitioners as white, racist and privi-
leged (or something else) despite the way in which practitioners posi-
tion themselves (or think they are positioned). High degrees of race
anxiety (reecting a political correctness discourse), may communi-
cate to clients that race is an issue that cannot be addressed. Silence
and anxiety about race may mean that whiteness is enacted through
racial micro-aggressions (subtle forms of racism) that may under-
mine the therapeutic relationship (Sue et al. 2007; Hardy and Las-
zloffy, 1994).
At the same time, talking about race difference was thought to
potentially impact negatively on the therapeutic relationship. Discus-
sions about talking about race difference revealed an interplay of
different discourses: a discourse of political correctness where it was
feared that talk about black and white may imply that racial hier-
archies exist and therapists could be viewed as racist (linked to an
essentialist racist discourse); and the discourse whiteness as an invis-
ible norm where not talking about colour and race is supported as it
implies equality and a common humanity (linked to a colour-blind
discourse).
The systemic notions of neutrality and not-knowing seemed to t
with a colour-blind/equality discourse and constrained talk about
whiteness in therapy. Although colour-blindness intends to value
equality in relationships, it evades the power issues associated with
race difference. Ignoring race also makes it more difcult for minority
people to claim their experiences of racism (Gunaratnam, 2003).
Systemic discourses of positioning, acknowledging dominant sociocul-
tural discourses and therapist responsibility for raising issues of
race and colour, seemed to facilitate conversations and a more race
aware approach. These discourses impact on the therapist, client and
2012 The Authors
therapeutic relationship in different and unpredictable ways. Thera-
pists positioning themselves transparently in relation to these dis-
courses may facilitate the process of talking about colour.
Implications of the study
The ndings of this study have implications for therapy in developing
cultural competency among white practitioners, talking about colour
difference and developing therapeutic relationships as well as for
training and research. Exploring white identities seemed to be an
important aspect of developing white therapists cultural competency.
The purpose of exploring white cultural identities is to enable white
practitioners to be better able to work the selfother hyphen (Kitz-
inger and Wilkinson, 1996, p. 14) rather than focusing exclusively on
the other. This work highlighted the need for therapists to be physi-
cally embodied (Hardham, 1996), including an awareness of skin
colour, and to use this embodiment to position ourselves more trans-
parently in the therapeutic relationship. Light-hearted, playful refer-
ences to our actual skin colour could provide good openers to
conversation as well as deconstructing the notion white. Questions to
facilitate white self-reexivity may include
How do you describe yourself ethnically and culturally? What does

whiteness mean to you?
What do the discourses evoked say about you as a person and your
history? (Roy-Chowdhury, 2006)
Have you ever been positioned as a white person in a way that was
comfortable or uncomfortable? How was the other positioned?
What discourse might this relate to?
What do you think whiteness may mean to those who consult

you or those you supervise? (See also Dempsters contribution in
Singh and Dutta, 2010, Roy-Chowdhury, 2006 and McIntosh,
1998).
Making whiteness visible, questioning its taken-for-granted status as
the norm and managing high degrees of race anxiety seem to be key
tasks. Given the complexity of initiating conversations about race,
Burnhams (2005) notion of relational reexivity could be applied.
Engaging the client collaboratively by talking about talk and warming
the context enables both therapist and client to be reexive about the
relationship and can help to address the power imbalance (Burnham,
2005). For example, clinicians could warm the context for talking
2012 The Authors
about race and colour, lightly touching on this as a topic and asking
questions like What would it be like if we talked about race and
colour? (discussion with Sue McNab, 2011). How would I know if I
offended you in some way (and vice versa)? How could we repair our
relationship if this happened?
The cultural genogram (Hardy and Laszloffy, 1995), a tool to
explore multi-generational cultural issues, can be usefully applied.
Explorations of colour could be extended in this discussion, for
example:
How has colour sameness or difference within your immediate and

extended family impacted on your cultural attitudes, political
ideas, sense of self, values and beliefs about what is important?
What are the pride and shame issues associated with colour?
How could you make use of these aspects of self in therapy?

This process could facilitate reclaiming and valuing a sense of white
cultural identity an important starting point for competent cross-
cultural therapy (Gorell Barnes, 2002).
In contrasting a focus on difference with that of connection thera-
pists could identify the themes in clients narratives that might
connect with our common humanity. In listening for what is not being
said but may be implicit (double listening) (Carey et al., 2009, p. 321;
White, 2003) therapists may identify neglected aspects within narra-
tives. For example, in stories of marginalization there may be
neglected stories of belonging; in stories of injustice, powerful values
of fairness; in stories of shame, signicant experiences of acceptance.
Listening in this way might enable themes related to colour and
culture to emerge, as they are not always obvious (Burnham and
Harris, 1996, p. 153).
Clinicians may nd it useful to identify the different discourses
around race and colour and how these might impact on themselves,
clients and the therapeutic relationship. The difculties of talking
about race and colour raised in this study could be discussed by the
therapist or reecting teams, for example:
I have a dilemma in that if I talk about colour some people might think
that this is racist; holding the view that were all equal and colour
shouldnt matter. However, others might feel that colour does impact on
all of us, giving advantages to some, particularly white people, and to not
talk about it is to ignore an important part of our experience. I wonder
how, if at all, these issues may be impacting on your family?
2012 The Authors
Alternatively, representing these positions or poles at each end
of a line could facilitate a dialogue among therapists and families
(Campbell and Groenback, 2006). For example, here are some posi-
tions taken by therapists or families. I wonder which statements most
t with your views (see Table 1).
In talking about colour in therapy, concerns about race anxiety and
political correctness need to be addressed. A willingness to admit
mistakes, tolerate uncertainty (Krause, 2002) and to be clumsy rather
than clever (Burnham and Harris, 2002, p. 153) is necessary for these
conversations. Developing a language for cross-cultural work (Nolte,
2007) and having forums to practice ones voice could help to address
this issue. Facilitated peer groups or self-learning groups (Woodger
and Cowan, 2006) that focus on building community rather than
safety (hooks, 1994), offer promising ways to develop white awareness
and critical consciousness (Hernandez et al., 2005).
Further discussion of whiteness could consider the contexts of
therapy as well as the power associated with these contexts, for
example, supervision (Pendry, 2011), theoretical frameworks and
institutional contexts. Cultural consultation groups could be formed
between dominant/powerful and marginal/minority groups to address
cultural bias and discriminatory behaviour and processes (McLean,
1994; Tamasese and Waldegrave, 1993). Systemic approaches that
could facilitate this work, such as those emphasizing ethical, social
justice approaches (Hernandez et al. 2005; Krause, 2002; Madigan
and Law, 1998; Tamasese and Waldegrave, 1993) seemed less
TABLE 1 Positions taken in the debate about race and colour
Dont talk about colour Talk about colour
because were all equal
and should be treated the same
as, although were equal, we have had
different experiences because of our
race/colour/culture
It is important for therapist to be
neutral
It is important for therapist to be
transparent and take a position
Clients will raise issues of colour
if they are important to them
The therapists responsibility is to name
issues that may impact on therapy
Are there statements that represent other positions apart from those listed
here?
How has your position been affected by dialogues between these and other
positions over the years, in various areas of your life?
How could you enter a dialogue with other positions to learn more about
the range of positions in this debate? (Campbell and Groenback, 2007).
2012 The Authors
inuential in the research discussions than other systemic approaches.
Future research could develop practices of relational reexivity and
link therapy process to client satisfaction, engagement and outcomes.
For example, critical incidents where therapists have explored race
and colour with clients could be studied along with feedback from
clients and outcome data.
Conclusion
In exploring the construction and enactments of whiteness three
main discourses were made apparent: whiteness as an invisible norm,
political correctness and systemic therapy discourse. These discourses
reveal the complexities of talking about colour in therapy. In not
seeing colour and being colour-blind about whiteness, practitioners
ignore the powerful positioning of white people in the racial hierar-
chy. The challenge for practitioners is to embody (Hardham, 1996)
whiteness (in all its shades) and to enable talk about race and colour
and the racial micro-aggressions that potentially undermine the
therapeutic relationship.
Possibilities for initiating and developing conversations about
colour include developing relational reexivity by talking about talk
about colour, talking about the difculties raised by the sociocultural
discourses identied in this study, identifying the complex intersec-
tions of difference and listening for neglected stories and themes in
clients narratives that connect with our common humanity. However,
training in systemic psychotherapy may need to further integrate the
broader sociocultural discourses in therapeutic conversations and
apply ethical social justice approaches. The enactment of whiteness in
therapy and the inuence of the contexts of institutions and knowl-
edge bases could be further explored. Collaborative and compassion-
ate forums or self-learning groups could facilitate an exploration of
these issues.
Acknowledgements
I am very thankful to the MSc trainees and trainers who gave their
time and ideas to this research study. In addition, I would like to
thank Sue McNab, who facilitates a supervision group, and my col-
leagues Lisa Thomson, Fawzia Kauser and Marta Costa-Caballero,
who have contributed to the development of the ideas in this
article.
2012 The Authors
References
Alexander, B. K. (2004) Black skins/White masks: the performative sustainability
of whiteness (with apologies to Franz Fanon). Qualitative Inquiry, 10: 647
672.
Anderson, H. and Goolishian, H. A. (1988) Human systems as linguistic systems:
preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family
Process, 27: 371393.
Anderson, H. and Goolishian, H. A. (1992) The client is the expert: a not-knowing
approach to therapy. In S. McNamee and K. J. Gergen (eds) Therapy as Social
Construction (pp. 2539). London: Sage.
Aponte, H. (1996) Political bias, moral values and spirituality in the training of
psychotherapists. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 60: 488502.
Barratt, S., Burck, C., Dwivedi, K. M., Stedman, M. and Raval, H. (1999) Theo-
retical bases in relation to race, ethnicity and culture in family therapy training.
Context, 44: 412.
British Psychological Society (2000) Clinical Psychology, Race and Culture: a Training
Manual. Leicester: BPS Books.
Breytenbach, B. (1993) Return to Paradise. London: Faber and Faber.
Burman, E. (2004) From difference to intersectionality: challenges and
resources. European Journal of Psychotherapy, Counselling and Health, 6: 293
308.
Burnham, J. (2005) Relational reexivity: a tool for socially constructing thera-
peutic relationships. In C. Flaskas, B. Mason and A. Perlesz (eds) The Space
Between: Experience, Context and Process in the Therapeutic Relationship (pp. 118).
London: Karnac.
Burnham, J. and Harris, Q. (1996) Emerging ethnicity: a tale of three cultures. In
K. M. Dwivedi (ed.) Meeting the Needs of Ethnic Minority Children. a Handbook for
Professionals, pp. 130156. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Burnham, J. and Harris, Q. (2002) Cultural issues in supervision. In D. Campbell
and B. Mason (eds) Perspectives in Supervision, (pp. 2141). London: Karnac.
Burr, V. (2003) Social Constructionism. London: Routledge.
Burton, L. M., Bonilla-Silva, E., Ray, V., Buckelew, R. and Freeman, E. H. (2010)
Critical race theories, colorism and the decades research on families of colour.
Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 72: 421432.
Campbell, D. (2003) The mutiny and the bounty: the place of Milan ideas today.
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 24: 1525.
Campbell, D. and Groenback, M. (2006) Taking Positions in the Organisation.
London: Karnac.
Campbell, D. and Groenback, M. (2007) Taking positions in the organisation. (Work-
shop). London: Tavistock Training Institute.
Carey, M., Walther, S. and Russell, S. (2009) The absent but implicit: a map to
support therapeutic enquiry. Family Process, 48: 319331.
Carter, R. T. (1995) The Inuence of Race and Racial Identity in Psychotherapy. Towards
a Racially Inclusive Model. New York: Wiley.
Cecchin, G. (1987) Hypothesising, circularity and neutrality revisited: an invita-
tion to curiosity. Family Process, 24: 405413.
Colmer, E., Dempster, C., Ganda, M., Messent, P., Minhinnink, F. and Wallis, J.
(2009) Whiteness in clinical practice. Context, 104: 1114.
2012 The Authors
Constantine, M., Juby, H. and Liang, J. (2001) Examining multicultural compe-
tence and race-related attitudes among White marital and family therapists.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27: 353362.
Dempster, C. (2001) Being and doing whiteness. Unpublished MSc dissertation.
Tavistock Clinic and the University of East London.
Dulwich Centre in Australia (n.d.) Home page retrieved 18 June 2012 from
dulwichcentre.com.au/privilege.
Dutton, J., El Hadi, A., Gray, P., Erskine, R. and Cox, B. (1999) Personal devel-
opment in relation to race, ethnicity and culture in family therapy training.
Context, 44: 3542.
Dyche, L. and Zayas, L. H. (1995) The value of curiosity and naivete for the
cross-cultural psychotherapist. Family Process, 34: 389399.
Dyer, R. (1997) White: Essays on Race and Culture. London: Routledge.
Equality Act (2010) Retrieved 18 June 2012 from: www.equalities.gov.uk.
Erskine, R. (2002) Exposing racism, exploring race. Journal of Family Therapy, 24:
282297.
Fatimilehin, I. A. and Dye, L. (2003) Building bridges and community empow-
erment. Clinical Psychology, 24: 5155.
Fernando, S. (2003) Psychiatry: The Struggle Against Racism. Hove: Brunner-
Routledge.
Flaskas, C. (2004) Thinking about the therapeutic relationship: Emerging themes
in family therapy. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 25:13
20.
Frankenberg, R. (1993) White Women, Race Matters. The Social Construction of White-
ness. Minneapolis, MI: University of Minnesota Press.
Fruggeri, L. (2012) Different levels of therapeutic competence. Journal of Family
Therapy 34: 91105.
Gorell Barnes, G. (2002) Getting it right, getting it wrong: developing an internal
discourse about ethnicity and difference. In B. Mason and A. Sawyerr (eds)
Exploring the Unsaid: Creativity, Risks and Dilemmas in Working Cross-culturally (pp.
133147). London: Karnac.
Guilfoyle, M. (2003) Dialogue and power: a critical analysis of power in dialogical
therapy. Family Process, 42: 331343.
Gunaratnam, Y. (2003) Researching Race and Ethnicity. Methods, Knowledge and
Power. London: Sage.
Hardham, V. (1996) Embedded and embodied in the therapeutic relationship:
understanding the therapists use of self systemically. In C. Flaskas and A.
Perlesz (eds) The Therapeutic Relationship in Systemic Therapy (pp. 7189).
London: Karnac.
Hardy, K. V. and Laszloffy, T. A. (1994) Deconstructing race in family therapy.
Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 5: 533.
Hardy, K. V. and Laszloffy, T. A. (1995) The cultural genogram: key to training
culturally competent family therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21:
227237.
Helms, J. E. (1984) Towards a theoretical model of the effects of race on coun-
selling: a Black and White Model. Counselling Psychologist, 12: 153165.
Hernandez, P., Almeida, R. and Dolan-Del Vecchio, K. (2005) Critical conscious-
ness, accountability and empowerment: key processes for helping families heal.
Family Process, 44: 105119.
2012 The Authors
hooks, bell (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New
York: Routledge.
Hubble, M. A., Duncan, B. L. D. and Miller, S. D. (eds) (1999) The Heart and Soul
of Change: What Works in Therapy). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Society.
Killian, K. (2001) Reconstituting racial histories and identities: the narratives
of interracial couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27: 27
42.
Kitzinger, C. and Wilkinson, S. (1996) Theorising representing the other. In S.
Wilkinson and C. Kitzinger (eds) Representing the Other. A Feminism and Psycho-
logical Reader (pp. 132). London: Sage.
Krause, I.-B. (2002) Uncertainty, risk-taking and ethics in therapy. In B. Mason
and A. Sawyer (eds) Exploring the Unsaid: Creativity, Risks and Dilemmas in
Working Cross-culturally (pp. 3448). London: Karnac.
Lago, C. (2006) Race, Culture and Counselling. Buckingham and Philadelphia, PA:
Open University Press.
Lewis, A. E. (2004) What group? Studying whiteness in an era of colour blindness.
Sociological Theory, 22: 623646.
Littlewood, R. (2000). Towards an intercultural therapy. In J. Kareem and R.
Littlewood (eds), Intercultural Therapy: Themes, Interpretations and Practice. 2
nd
edn. (pp. 313). Oxford: Blackwell Science.
McDowell, T. and Jeris, L. (2004) Talking about race using critical race theory:
recent trends in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 30: 8194.
McIntosh, P. (1998) White privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack. In M.
McGoldrick (ed.) Re-Visioning Family Therapy: Race, Culture and Gender in Clinical
Practise (pp. 147152). New York: Guilford.
MacKinnon, L. C. and Miller, D. (1987) The new epistemology and the Milan
approach: feminist and sociopolitical considerations. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 13: 139155.
McLean, C. (1994) Editorial. Accountability. New directions for working in part-
nership. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, 2 and 3: 25.
Madigan, S. and Law, I. (eds) (1998) Praxis. Situating Discourse, Feminism and Politics
in Narrative Therapies. Vancouver: Cardigan Press.
Nelson, K., Brendel, J. and Mize, L. (2001) Therapist perceptions of ethnicity
issues in family therapy: a qualitative enquiry. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 27: 363373.
Nolte, L. (2007) White is a colour too: engaging actively with the risks, challenges
and rewards of cross-cultural family therapy training and practice. Journal of
Norcross, J. C. (2010) The therapeutic relationship. In B. L. Duncan, S. D. Miller,
B. E. Wampold and M. A. Hubble (eds), The Heart and Soul of Change: Delivering
What Works in Therapy (2
nd
edn) (chapter 4). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
Pandya, K. and Herlihy, J. (2009) An exploratory study into how a sample of a
British South Asian population perceive the therapeutic alliances in family
therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 31: 384404.
Parker, I. (1992) Discourse Dynamics: Critical Analysis for Social and Individual Psy-
chology. London: Routledge.
2012 The Authors
Pearce, W. B. and Cronen, V. (1980) Communication, Action and Meaning: the
Creation of Social Realities. New York: Praeger.
Pendry, N. (2011) Race, racism and systemic supervision. Journal of Family Therapy,
retrieved 18 June 2012 from doi 10.1111/j.1467-6427.2011.00576.x
Pewewardy, N. (2004) The political is personal: the essential obligation of white
feminist family therapists to deconstruct white privilege. Journal of Feminist
Pinderhughes, E. (1989) Understanding Race, Ethnicity and Power. the Key to Efcacy
in Clinical Practice. New York: The Free Press.
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes
and Behaviour. London: Sage.
Real, T. (1990) The therapeutic use of self in constructivist systemic therapy.
Family Process, 29: 255272.
Reason, P. and Rowan, J. (eds) (1981) Human Inquiry. London: Wiley.
Roy-Chowdhury, S. (2006) How is the therapeutic relationship talked into being?
Journal of Family Therapy, 28:153174.
Ryde, J. (2009) Being White in the Helping Professions. Developing Effective Intercul-
tural Awareness. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Selvini Palazzoli, M., Cecchin, G., Prata, G. and Boscolo, L. (1980) Hypothesising-
circularity-neutrality: three guidelines for the conductor of the session. Family
Process, 19: 312.
Singh, R. (2007) The process of family talk across culture. Unpublished thesis, Uni-
versity of East London and Tavistock Clinic.
Singh, R. and Dutta, S. (2010) Race and Culture. Tools, Techniques and Trainings: A
Manual for Professionals. London: Karnac.
Sue, D. W. and Sue, D. W. (2003) Counseling the Culturally Diverse: Theory and
Practice. (4th edn) New York: Wiley.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Treleaven Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A.
M. B., Nadal, K. L. et al. (2007) Racial microaggressions in everyday life.
Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62: 271286.
Tamasese, K. and Waldegrave, C. (1993) Cultural and gender accountability in
the just therapy approach. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 5: 2945.
Tuckwell, G. (2002) Racial Identity: White Counsellors and Therapists. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Treleaven, L. (2001) The turn to action and the linguistic turn: towards an
integrated methodology. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of
Action Research. Participative Inquiry and Practice (pp. 261272). London: Sage.
Twine, F. W. and Gallagher, C. (2008) Introduction. The future of whiteness: a
map of the third wave. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31: 424.
Wallis, J. M. (2009) Constructions and enactments of whiteness in systemic psychotherapy:
a discursive analysis. Unpublished M Sc dissertation. Tavistock and Portman
National Health Service Foundation Trust and University of East London.
White, M. (2003) Narrative practice and community assignments. International
Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work, 2: 1756.
Wilkinson, S. (2008) Focus groups. In J. A. Smith (ed.) Qualitative Psychology. a
Practical Guide to Research Methods. London: Sage.
Williams, P. E., Turpin, G. and Hardy, G. (2006) Clinical psychology service
provision and ethnic diversity within the UK: a review of the literature. Clinical
Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13: 324338.
2012 The Authors
Willig, C. (2003) Discourse analysis. In J. A. Smith (ed.) Qualitative Psychology: a
Practical Guide to Research Methods (pp. 16085). London: Sage.
Willig, C. (2008) Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology. Adventures in Theory
and Method. 2nd edn. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Woodger, D. and Cowan, J. (2006) Achieving equality of service response: an
action research approach to tackling institutional racism. Research Policy and
Planning, 24: 7390.
2012 The Authors

Constructions and Enactments of Whiteness: A Discursive Analysis

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Constructions and Enactments of Whiteness: A Discursive Analysis

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Constructions and enactments of whiteness:

How do you describe yourself ethnically and culturally? What does

What do you think whiteness may mean to those who consult

How has colour sameness or difference within your immediate and

How could you make use of these aspects of self in therapy?

S-ar putea să vă placă și