Being Seen vs. Being Invisible

When thinking about the third research question - How does being of this particular racial mix impact the experience of hope in personal therapy? - the participants were unable to see a direct link between their racial experience and the experience of hope in their personal therapy, I, however, began to see connections emerging related to being seen and not being seen by their therapist.

All the participants had times when their therapists had referred back to their racial background and mixed upbringing in relation to things they were experiencing in the present. On every occasion this was coupled with positive feelings and a sense of being understood. However, as well as these experiences of being seen, Kim experienced not being seen in the most extreme way as her therapist had only once raised the impact of her background yet she felt ‘it’s just so obvious, isn’t it?’ This experience was echoed by other participants to varying degrees.

It became clearer as the analysis progressed that the experience of being seen was fundamental to the participants’ sense of self and wholeness and therefore to how hopeful – or hopeless – they felt. This theme is echoed elsewhere in the literature throughout the narratives of those of various racial mixes (Chiawei O’Hearn, 1998;

Fuyo Gaskins, 1999). Whilst ‘being seen’ is an important element of the therapeutic experience within all psychological therapies (especially in the absence of visibility and acceptance in earlier life) it was evident from its prominence in the data that there was a particularly strong need for all aspects of the self to be acknowledged for these participants. The cultural and ethnic experiences that were inherent in their stories had influenced their experience of being-in-the-world and it was vital that this was named and made explicit.

One particular element of ‘relational hope is about being known as a person’

(O’Hara, 2013:p.42) and, for this group, this included their therapists acknowledging their racial mix. In every case in this research the therapists had knowledge of their clients’ backgrounds so the material already existed in the room. Depending on their theoretical framework, each practitioner will have his or her own view of what they should bring up and what the client should bring up regarding issues of race.

However, regardless of where responsibility lies, if we accept the premise that all

encounters are co-created, we could say that we cannot solely point the finger at therapists’ shortcomings as at times the participants hid themselves whether consciously or not. This does not mean that ‘colour blindness’ does not lead to frustration but maybe both sides of the dyad need to take some responsibility for raising issues of difference.

As previously said, none of the dyads in this research were ‘racially matched’ and whilst this at times caused some frustration or lack of understanding, a willingness to engage in a dialogue about racial experiences was seen to be a key component of hopefulness in the relationship. This finding is backed up by a phenomenological study (Chang & Berk, 2009) of minority clients’ experiences of cross-racial therapy where it was found that minority clients appreciated an awareness of racial difference and culture-specific knowledge.

Whilst it is recommended that therapists have the courage to make mistakes and to feel uncomfortable, there was little data in these interviews that opened the way for exploring mistakes around the participants’ racial background – an area that Angela acknowledged as being potentially ‘controversial’. One hint of this courage was me calling my therapist ‘brave’ for raising comments about the impact of my being mixed race as I acknowledged it was not easy for all therapists to do. Only once did Kim mention that she was angry with her therapist for responding to her racial experience with a textbook response rather than in a way that suggested some understanding of Kim as an individual, which left her feeling unseen. This rupture could have potentially offered some fertile ground for repair (Safan et al, 1994; Safran & Muran, 1996), however, it did not seem that Kim and her therapist had a strong enough alliance to endure an open dialogue around this. Other participants spoke of times when they felt misunderstood by their therapists but, despite seemingly sound alliances, these experiences were not followed up by either side acknowledging the misattunement. Despite the literature on ruptures, the therapists in these cases (who were described as experienced by their clients) either did not pick up on or, if they did, did not work through these mistakes that could have benefitted both parties.

Although it has been said that ‘the experience of racism is a visible difference... white people do not experience racism’ (Dhillon-Stevens, 2008:p.54), I would argue that the experiences of these participants muddies the water of a seemingly clear divide.

By bridging the worlds of ‘White’ and ‘Not White’, the racism these participants experience is more subtle and confusing. Given that the therapeutic encounter can be seen as a ‘social microcosm’ (Yalom, 2001:p.47), we could deduce that there was some racial discomfort from their therapists. Tuckwell (2002) suggests we look beyond visible difference as race is not about biological difference but rather social difference – however, in these cases, the racism was experienced as a result of perceived biological sameness. As Ifekwunigwe (2001) says ‘it is contradictory radicalised perceptions of physical differences that frequently determine and undermine the lived experiences of those who, as active agents, identify as, and/or are socially designated as ‘mixed race’ (p.46). Hopefully the data here has unveiled the lived experience of what it is like to belong to a minority group that does not necessarily fit with current theoretical constructs.

This theme of being seen (and unseen) also played out in the research process itself. By taking part in this study, the participants made themselves visible – although they are still hidden through the use of pseudonyms and through the grouping together of the data, which offers them the chance to share their opinion whilst standing alongside others who are similar to them. Lara in particular did not want to disclose her racial mix as she felt it would have made her identifiable which, for reasons only known to her, would have been uncomfortable. This illustrates one of the many paradoxes found in the data (to be expanded on in section 5.5): that people of mixed race want to be seen and to connect with others but in such a way that is safe and where their individuality is seen without them being ostracized or objectified.

With the exception of Lara, all the participants spoke of ‘passing’ (as white) – a phenomenon that seems to be particular to groups whose phenotypes belie their genotype. They used phrases such as ‘I wanted to be like them’, ‘I have denied it a lot’, ‘I’ve been quite hidden with it’ and ‘I have tried to fit in’. ‘Passing’ is a painful process and although it can be seen as a form of protection from potential racist comments, it is also used as a defence mechanism against the pain and shame of being different: ironically, however, the process of ‘passing’ itself leads to shame and pain as the individual inadvertently colludes with those who are unable to see them for who they are. This in turn leads to an ‘in-out dynamic”, which can sometimes be seen as a sign that the individuals are comfortable with different cultures and

environments – but this ‘social adaptability’ comes about, in part, because of an inconsistent sense of self and unclear identity.

Around this area, authenticity presented itself in the literature as relevant.

Authenticity can mean a broad range of things including the alignment between how someone presents themselves and how they feel and the importance of authenticity has been stressed by psychodynamic theorists, such as Winnicott (1965) as well as humanistic theorists (Rogers, 1964; Yalom, 1980). Wood et al’s (2008) work on developing an authenticity scale concluded that authenticity could highlight differences between groups. Their three-dimensional authenticity model incorporates the overlapping dimensions of: self-alienation (ie an inadequate sense of identity);

external influence (belief that one must adjust to others’ expectations); and authentic living (being true to oneself). The first two dimensions are signs of inauthenticity and the latter of authenticity. Wood et al spoke in particular of those who may have ‘a potential identity which is not visually clear (such as Jewish, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people, and people with unseen disabilities such as epilepsy)’

(p.397). Although the mixed race group was not listed, I noted Angela’s desire to be

‘loud and proud’ – a phrase most often used with reference to homosexuals – so I feel these participants belong to this wider ‘hidden’ group and agree that issues of authenticity may be particularly important because of the ‘additional strain of not knowing whether people would treat them differently if their true group membership was known’ (p.397).

Akin and Akin (2014) looked at authenticity as a predictor of hope in a Turkish sample. Using Wood et al’s (2008) model, their research showed that levels of authenticity predicted levels of hope, which they interpreted as consistent with research that shows that hope is related to psychological strengths such as better coping, empowerment and psychosocial functioning.

Whilst authenticity was not mentioned specifically by the participants in this research, and although Akin and Akin’s (2014) research was conducted using quantitative measures, it can be seen that by trying to fit in with the white ‘norm’ around them, some of the participants could be said to be living inauthentically by not fully acknowledging their racial mix. O’Hara (2013) understands this slip into inauthenticity as the outcome of not being able to cope with the despair in our lives -

in the case of these participants, despair around the lack of understanding and acceptance of their mixed race experience. In light of the correlation between experiences of authenticity and hope, one could tentatively draw a conclusion that the experience of hope in my research study was related to their being mixed race, in part, for these reasons.

Aligned to this, O’Hara and O’Hara’s research (2012) cited in O’Hara (2013) found five blockages to hope, one of which was unconfronted aspects of the self. Whilst I understand their take on this blockage (ie not owning certain beliefs) in the case of this participant group, I feel that this blockage was related to aspects of their mixed race experience, and therefore of themselves, that had not been fully integrated thus far.