5.1.1 Cultural Matching - Introduction

Over the past decades, particularly in countries that are multi-cultural – as are most countries nowadays – there has been increasing appreciation of a cultural divide that exists in society in general but particularly in the helping professions.

Bridging this cultural divide has led to the recruitment of, for example, black workers to work with black youth, gay and lesbian workers to work in agencies that assist gays and lesbians etc.

In Ireland there are organisations that are focused on issues that arise for the Travelling Community and there are some Travellers employed in them.  (It would be of great benefit if there were more [1]).

All the above are examples of cultural matching – and in general it seems to work well. Affording culture the importance it deserves has some element of high-impact low-noticeability; in the sense that while the recipients of the service generally don’t think that much about it, it has a powerful effect.

The culture of individuals and families in the Focus Group is, however, quite different to that of black people, gays/lesbians, Travellers, or other easy-to-distinguish minorities who might need support to ensure that their rights are respected.

It is formed not by colour of skin, or sexual orientation, or ethnicity, but by trauma, exclusion, loss, fear, anxiety and the emotional roller-coaster that is part and parcel of family involvement in crime, drug addiction and imprisonment.

And even within the trauma, it is usually private trauma, not public trauma that distinguishes.

(Of course, camaraderie, creativity, tenacity, togetherness, friendship and caring also contribute to the overall culture.   But sadly the more negative ones are present enough to be influential – in that they contribute to many behaviours that are problematic).

Now in families in the Focus Group, there are many individuals that wish to help others, for example are the strong and wise people that I referred to in this post earlier on, and who will have often been helping informally anyway in their extended families for many years.

It is obvious that people who have been directly affected by imprisonment will have learned skills throughout the years that practitioners like me who have not been so affected (or, at least, not as deeply) will not have learned.

If our organisation wishes to take cultural matching seriously, we need to be proactive in smoothing the path for people directly affected to take up positions of responsibility, leadership etc., should they so desire, to support other families going through the same experiences. (This can be challenging – I explore the process further in the Chapter on Training and also in a post that I entitle two-way challenge towards the end of the website – in the Epilogue).

Cultural matching is a huge saver of energy and time but far more importantly is empowering and inspirational.  Work is undertaken with families in partnership and this gives the relationship a symmetrical dimension.  Because we tend towards symmetry (i.e. we find symmetry attractive) we are drawn to relationship, with the locus of decision making in respect of our choices almost always within ourselves.

If we are suffering, this invitation is helpful:

Firstly in becoming aware of and then trusting the process of growth (the root foundations) within ourselves; and secondly taking responsibility for our circumstances as the relationship develops.

[1]. As I was writing this I thought of how few members of our Travelling Community are working in a professional capacity within their own communities.  This is a terrible indictment of our efforts to be inclusive of the Travelling Community in our education system since the foundation of our State – and continuing to today in respect of the Mission Statement of the Department of Education.   

Central to cultural matching, for formally trained practitioners, is our invitation. (I will be covering what I will refer to as invitational leadership in the Chapter on Leadership, later in this Section).

If we aspire to do something different, but very hurt people are not included in what we are doing, then we run the risk of being seen as functionaries – maybe very nice, maybe even very professional, but functionaries nonetheless.

In my experience, after the initial invitation, when we become established and comfortable in a very hurt person’s world, we may forget the invitational nature of the relationship.  When we forget that, (almost always unintentionally – it must be said) we start imposing our own ideas and norms and values and then we expect that the response to our invitation will stay the same.

But it doesn’t – and very often the people who matter most drift away.

This was brought home to me one night on the street when a young man, at the end of a long complaint, said to me angrily; ‘Only for me you wouldn’t have a job’.  (I was obviously trying to draw some boundary or another).

While the logical, defensive part of my brain immediately kicked in and decided that the statement was not factually true – because there are loads of jobs that I could do – after some reflection I realised that the whole truth was – yes – only for him I wouldn’t have a job that I really enjoyed.

So I knew what he was getting at.

Further reflection alerted me to the realisation that I had initially invited him by being friendly and (I suppose) unconditional – which was easy – because the context of the invitation was the street.

However, when we began to go on activities which meant us (the workers) imposing conditions, I realised that there was more work to be done on the negotiation of those conditions.