Value dimensions in american counseling: A Taiwanese-American comparison

Abstract

This paper is a discussion of prevailing American value dimensions in counseling theory and practice in general and a comparison of Taiwanese-Chinese and American counseling value dimensions in particular. Whereas most studies on cross-cultural issues to date have focused on American majority-minority value conflicts, this paper discusses a new level of value conflict, that between cultures, between nations.Part I discusses differences in cognition and affect between American and Taiwanese-Chinese. We have found that despite decades of American influence on Taiwanese culture, strong value differences persist between both countries, which leads us to believe that culture values are non-negotiable, structural elements of human existence. These basic differences in values influence perception, cognition, and behavior of American and Taiwanese culture bearers and result in predictable cross-culture conflicts.Part II presents a conceptualization of culture values and further discusses the American values embedded in counseling practices. To understand this influence we have identified (using Geert Hofstede's four culture value dimensions) cultural characteristics unique to Americans and Taiwanese-Chinese.Part III specifically discusses the impact of American individualism on counseling theory, and how the strong American belief of the universality of individualism can lead to an inability to validate collectivist cultures.We conclude by suggesting that more longitudinal and historic analysis could generate more in-depth information about culture values. This in turn could make a truly international and inter-cultural theory and practice of counseling a more likely possibility. 138

The Learning Community and Emotional Learning in a University-based Training of Counsellors and Psychotherapists

“…Such clashes in culture have been explored on a larger scale by those such as Hofstede (2001) who suggested that we might consider 'intercultural management' in terms of individualism versus collectivism (which could include competitiveness versus caring), high and low respect for authority, masculinity versus femininity, and short-term versus long-term orientation. Lichia and Raymond (1985) and Lago (2006), amongst others, have used Hofstede's framework to explore value dimensions and issues of race and intercultural counselling; but would such concepts also be helpful in exploring the appropriateness of a therapeutic culture for the communities it serves? The place taken up by teachers and therapists might also be considered abusive in terms of the teachers'/therapists' personal power because of their compliance to the dominant discourse.…”

Competing Paradigms

“…Jun’s silence needed to be understood in this context. Consistent with Chinese values related to power and dependable authority figures (Lichia & Raymond, 1985), Jun needed scientific answers and appraisals more than discussions about psychological well-being.…”

“…It is through reflexive awareness that practitioner values and the subsequent influence on clinical decision-making can be brought to the forefront (Adshead, 2009; Fulford, Caroll, & Peile, 2011). Jun’s case highlighted conflicting cultural values, norms, and idioms of distress common to psychiatric practice (Kirmayer, 1989; Lichia & Raymond, 1985). Our approach was congruent with western beliefs about helping, which emphasize individual identity and pharmacological treatment (Kirmayer, 1989; Lichia & Raymond, 1985) unlike Chinese approaches that value collective identity, holistic health and indigenous methods of healing (Kirmayer, 1989; Lichia & Raymond, 1985; Chen & Wong, 2009).…”

“…Jun’s case highlighted conflicting cultural values, norms, and idioms of distress common to psychiatric practice (Kirmayer, 1989; Lichia & Raymond, 1985). Our approach was congruent with western beliefs about helping, which emphasize individual identity and pharmacological treatment (Kirmayer, 1989; Lichia & Raymond, 1985) unlike Chinese approaches that value collective identity, holistic health and indigenous methods of healing (Kirmayer, 1989; Lichia & Raymond, 1985; Chen & Wong, 2009). Expressions of individual psychological distress are encouraged in western approaches to therapy, whereas expression of individual feelings is discouraged in Chinese culture in order to preserve collective harmony (Kirmayer, 1989; Lichia & Raymond, 1985; Chen & Wong, 2009).…”