Effective psychotherapy requires a culturally competent clinician. Cultural competence is broadly understood as the ability to work skillfully across cultures, engaging the perspectives and identities of both clinician and patient [1]. The concept has been moving from the margins to mainstream of psychiatric pedagogy [2,3]. While cultural competence is increasingly seen as a core component of training, it remains challenging to operationalize. Arguably, all psychotherapy is cross-cultural, as even a clinician and a patient from similar sociodemographic backgrounds may have widely differing constructs of mental health, relationships, and indeed of the psychotherapeutic process itself. Clinicians must skillfully navigate these complex cultural issues to achieve the alliance, attunement and collaboration necessary for a positive treatment response [4]. The complexity deepens as trainees, patients, and supervisors bring many different cultural systems into play when engaged with one another in therapeutic and educational experiences. A culturally competent supervisor must provide teaching strategies to help the trainee navigate these intersecting cultural forces.Two approaches to cultural competence dominate the literature, each of which fall short in helping supervisors develop these teaching strategies. In the first approach, rigorous and structured instruments, such as the DSM-V Cultural Formulation Interview or the previous Outline for Cultural Formulation, offer concrete tools but have incurred critiques for being rigid or formulaic when culture is inherently fluid and evolving [5]. In the second approach, theoretical writings on cultural competence present thoughtful critiques of mainstream paradigms and assumptions but offer few strategies for embodying these insights in specific educational techniques. Supervisors are thus left with the predicament of needing to teach their trainees to navigate issues of culture without a clear sense of just how to do so [6,7]. The great challenge of teaching cultural competence is to reconcile the gap between pre-written algorithmic approaches and the clinical positions of openness, curiosity and uncertainty that are the hallmarks of a culturally competent practice. This paper offers a set of supervision strategies that bridge the gap between prescriptive clinical instruments and more theoretical discourses on culture. We have distilled these strategies from a focused review of the education, culture, and psychotherapy literatures to devise a theoretical approach and skill set that educators can implement into practice. We have named our model for teaching cultural competence the "not-knowing stance". Readers familiar with MentalizationBased Therapy will recognize Bateman's description of "notknowing" as one part of a therapist's position [8,9]. This paper draws from this and other literatures to expand the term "not-knowing," defining and operationalizing a core stance required in cross-cultural clinical and teaching spaces. We delineate three primary teaching components of...