Availableonline at wwwrciencedirect..om -J ""''""@"'"="" lntcrnntio.rl lonrnat of INTERCULTURAL Internalional Joumat of Interculturat RELATlONS ffiEI.SEVIER Retations 28 (2M4) 595412 wvw.erseuer.com/locate/ijtutrel

Working with emotionin educationalintergroup dialogue M. Lydia Khuri + Uniuersity of linois.906Co eseCowL PAR 107MC-lt8, Utbav, IL6t80t, LJSA

Abstract

As a fofin of multicultural ,intergroup dialogueis one melhod to improve lntergroup relations. _ Furlhermore, this form of experienlialeducation inevitably elicits emottonal responsesto diversi!yand socialjusticeissues. The theoryand research,however, supporting pedagogy its lack a comprehensiveframework for working with emotion.Recent empiricaland theoreticalwork on emotionin intergroupinteraction giies us someguidance in conceprualizing rhe cenrraliiyand complexityof enrotionalconrent and processesrn intergloup contact. Additionally, ample evidencecxists for the primacy of ;ffect in the regulationofsocial relationshipsfrom the parcnt-

*-lel., + t2t7 26562'16fax: +12173335850. E ,ld,i d.'e$: [email protected].

0147-1767i$-s€efron! mauerO 2005Els€vier Lrd. Alt righrsreserved_ doi:I 0.l0 I 6/j.ijjntre1.2005.01.012 596 M.L. Khui / hnernationalJournal of IntercxltunlRelation' 28 (2004)595412

intergroupinteraction, and (4) to work uith faciliLators'affecti\€ processes. lmplications for researchare alsodiscussed. O 2005Els€vier Ltd. A11rights resened.

Kp)rdr,A IntergroLprelaLions: Emotion: Lducalion

1. Introduction

As a form of , intergroup dialogue is one method to improve . Furthermore, this form of experientialeducation incvitablyelicits emotional responses to diversityand socialjustice jssues. The theory and research(Beale & Schoem,200l;Gurin, Peng,Lopez, & Nagda, 1999;Nagda & Zt ga, 2003; Stephan & Stephan, 2001; Zuniga. & Chesler, 1993), however', supportingits pedagogylack a comprehensiveframework for working with emotion. Recentempirical and theoreticalwork on emotion in intergroup contact gives!s someguidance in conceptualizingthe centralityand complexityofemotional content and processesin iltergroup contact(Mackie & Smith,2002).Rather than being unidimensioDal,these reactions reveal ambivalence, renecting positive and negative emotions and discernablepatterns toward differcnt outgroups (Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2002).Along with social ,other disciplinessuch as neuroscicncc, dcvelopmentalpsychology, and clinical psychologyhave producedample evidence for the primacy of affect in the regulation of social relationships from the parent-infantdyad to intergroupinteractions (Beebe,2004; Beebe & Lachmann, 2002:Bucci & Miller, 1993;Damasio, 1999; Dovidio, Esses,Beach, & Caertner, 2002:Forgas, 2001; Leyens, Demoulin, Desert, Vaes, & Philippot,2002; Stern, 1985). With a few exceptions(Stephan & Stephan,1985), experimental work on affectin intorgloup relationsprimarily focuseson assessingleactiolls to imaginedor actual, one-timelaboratory encounters (Blair, Patk, & Bachelor,2003; Djiker, 1987; Dovidio et al., 2002;Wilder, 1993).Also with few exceptions(Stephan & Stephan, 1985;Stephan & Stephan,1989; Tropp,2003), the literatureexamines the reactions of only dominant group membcrs, for exarnple, white Ame cans to (Dovidio et aI.,2002)hererosexual people to gay men and lesbians(B)air et al., 2003),or Europeansto Africals (Leycnset al., 2002)or to Arabs on European soil (Yabar, 2000 in Leycns et al., 2002). In contrast to experimentalwork' intergroup dialogueinvolves complex dynamicswithin the context of structured, sustained,face-to-face conversation among real peopleoldominant and subordinate socialidentity groups. Recommendationsto improve intergroup contact include intervention at the "level of emotion" (Mackie & Smith, 2002,p. 29?). Stephanand Stephan(2001) offer a number of plejudicercduction processesseveral of which focus on affective dimensions:reducing thr€at, modifying associationsbetween cognitions and affect' and cleatiqgempathy. Other specificrecommendations aimed at the emotionall€vel includehelping people become aware of their ncgativeernotions and to believethey M.L. Khuri / It;terMtiomt Jownat of IntetdLurut Retatiotl 28 eAA4) 5gs4r2 Sg.j mlght succeedin theseinteractiotrs. people also needenough cognitive resources not to be overwhelmedby situational demands(Leyens "t .1" ZOOij.^altfr"rgh jt does not focussystematicaily on the affective Iuy"., int".g.olrf i;ffi"r, pf,lloropfryunO structureprime the gound to do so. addressthis absence,I- propose . _-To a set of guiderinesto work with emotron in lntergroup.dialoguethat would provide ways(rjto foster overal po.iiiu" ,rrrerg.oup contact,(2) to work effectively with negativeaffect and resistanceas integrarand not to positive intergroup :ill."^].!" rnteractions,(3) to attend to the force that amorvatenceexerts on lntergroup interaction, and (4) to work with facilitators, ;ll:ffiJT;::#J\i,'i:ft :i'ff,i:::':"J: jih-.fi principlesand techniques, "T;n:".,'t;iul of course,inform """h orh;;;;J";; o"nil" urtn"iutty separatedThe latter is deservingofand jtrasreceived more a"ultJ-"iuio.utior, (s"" Adams, Belt, & Griffin, 1997; Ztnisa & Chesler,199r. A t;;a;;;vrew of the contexts that shaped principles these is followed by u'a".".lfiion of ,n,"rgroup dialogue,.a discussionof emotion, and rhen the guidelines.flrify, i*,rr oaar"r, researchimpiications.

2. Contextsfor developmentof principles

The, casefor developing theseguidelines in working with emotion resrs upon severalfactors: claims made in the literature on intergr"oupJi"t"ogu"-ii", ,orhng with feelings is-a core component of this rype of education; riry own year.sof ": fl"]tita.ror of intergrou!,dialogue; the resear.chtiterature addressing .ne:ll.]1._:::, central role i ol altect in intergroupcontact; and nry trainingand work as a Atthough.these.principles are embejded wir"hina parncutar peoagogy,ry:!,h*:pi"they may be usefulin other contextsfocusing upon intergroupexploration (see Stephan & Stephan, 2001, for a complete review of ,nJael, to improvc lntergrouprelations). Addilionally, these principresare in responseto an abselce in rrre riterat.,re regardingworking with affect in improving intergroup relations. Upon hearing a prevrous vercion of this paper, a colleaguein the neld of intergioup relatiols commented that he found tiis material on working with affeci complex and generally lollowed his intuition when it came to dealing with emotions in the classroom.Although many educatorsare indeed gifted facilitators atd naturally capable of working with a range of affectiveexpressions and processes,one s own u'rtuitiondoes not give one all the skills and conceptualfoundations to work with complex affectiveprocesses. Several barriers, however, prevent a more thorough approachto developingcomp€tencies in working with affict in educationalsettings. At the institutionallevel, emotion (as lived experienceinforming scholarship,notjust a subject of study) is not emphasizedin academictraining. Adaitionally, a lack of a conceptual frameworkmay leaveeducators at a lossas to how bestto aoproachwhat may feel too per.sonalor non-intellectual. On a psychoJogicallevel. it may perhapsbe the casethat peoplein generaldo not like to be told that they requiremore spccific I M.L. nuri / InternatianatJaunlat of hx.rcuttumt Retarias28 (2004) 595412

tning in understandingand expressingemotion becauseof the assertionthat totlon ls common experienceand therefore common knowledge.In conlrasq :ilitators who consider themselvesunique in their intuitive and/or emorronal ilities may not want to subject them to inquiry and elaboration becauseit nrystifiesthose abilities and may threatena senseof specialness.Finally, working th emotions requiresemotional self-scrutinyand awareness.Given the inter_ rsonal lature of this work such explorationoccurs most often with the help of hers.This processof interpersonalself-rcflection may make one feel uncomfor_ ble,vullerable, or ordinaly. Theseguidelines draw from the severaldisciplines mentioned above but also trotn ntenporaty theodes of psychodynamicpsychotherapy. This may come a$ a lprise, but no other disciplinchas as robust theoies of practice as it pertains to )rking with emotion in sustained,face-to-lacc contact, A caveatis in ol.derthat any may antlcipate:psychothefapy mainly offers theories of intrapsychlc and terpelsonalprocesses. Yet, intrapsychic,interpersonal. anrl intelgroupievels can seenas parts ofa systcmthat penetrateand influcnceeach other. Theseguidelines, erefore,are meant to servein a holistic way, that is, to facilitate working with lect in herc-and-nowintergroup conlact while lqavingroom for diffefentiatjncthe ufccsof dffectivcresponses.

Intergroupdialogue

Intergloupdialogue is a form of intentional.small group engagement (Schoemr urtado,Sevig, Chesler, & Sumida,2001) based on the democraticprinciple of ared and equalp4rticipation in civic processes(Marger, 1999).In the UDjtcd atcs, it is an increasinglypopuiar, structured, face-to-faceforun: for broadly .dressingcultural id€ntity, intcrgroup conflict, and structural inequalitv or lor .dressingspecilic problcms which particulargroups or co,nmuniiiesnray face chocmet al., 2001).Succcssful interactions rcst, in pad, on the generalprinciples the rntelgroupcontact hypothesis:equal status bctweengroups; sustainedand Lrmatecontact amorg participants; opportunities for authentic relationships; pport fiom lelevant authority figures;and common, overarchinggoals (Allport, 79;Pettigrcw & Tropp,2000;Stephan & Stephan,200l;Zuniga & Chesler,1993). The model in higher cducation explicitly emphasizesthe following goals: (l) ploring intergroup similarities and differcnces;(2) exploring histodcal and ntemporaryconflicts; (3) linking individualexpedences to socialgroup expericnccs thin the context of stluctural inequality,and (4) examiningways to movc flon1 oguelo empowerm€ntand action (Chesler,2001; Gurin et al., 1999;Thompson, 'ett, & Behling,2001; Zuniga & Nagda, 1993).It differs from rmditional and even )n other forms of multicultural educationbecause it acknowledsesthe Dositive lc ofaffectiveexpression and conflict(Nagda & Zuniga.2003;Step"han & Siephan, 01; Thompsonet a1.,2001).Although scholarly and popularreadings provide nceptualframewotks and current,controversial topics (Zuniga & Cyton-Walker, 03), participants leam primarily throrgh facilitated, phase-specific,pcrsonal M.L. Kuri / InternationatJou at of Interdhurat Retatio s2A (2004) 5g54t2 ag9 sharing. Two people, oire lrom each social group, co_facilitate,and participant numbersare balancedwirh an ideal_rotal l6 iNa;;a, Zunigu, A'S"uig, 1995).For example,an African American ,of_ and JewsdElogue would haveone Afr.icanAmeucan and one.Jewish facilitator with equal numbers of participants fi.om each group. Courseslast anywherefrom 12 to 25 contact hours. Thereare, however, lessexplicit goalsitr intergroupdialogue. participants do not elgagein dialogue only to gain knowledgeor advocatefor s-ocialchange. Atthough these.are key goals, I posit that they move into and through diaffie atso ror emotional reasons: to engagein an endeavor where the firndameital feeiings uxderlyingcommunity-.,concern, trust,.respect,appreciation, affection, and hope,, (Burbules, 1993,p. 4lfmay be expe enced.In a very broad way, thesethree goals-knowiedge, action, and community__form the matrix for democratic engagement(Burbules, 1993;Nussbaum, 2001). Community here is nor meanr ro imply a^utopian sameness(young, 1990in- Burbules, lfff; but to- lncomfass-----"'' varyrng levelsof concernfor othersacross and within or_.rrdiff"r"n..". To achicve_ thesegoals, intergroup dialoguerequires collaborative self-reflection on aspectsof self, others, and world. Thosc who seek intergroup dialogue often overtly wish to learn or share-with.an emphasison cognitiveindei.sta-naing_rvllat makesthemselves or others tick ar'd ro learn how to m;ke things different.We are beginnin^gmore fully to understand,nonerheless, how necessaryi is to fay attcntion to the affectiverealm. participants are motivated to .ng"g" in "o*rn'uiity unC to experience thosefeelings, as noted above, associated with community.Thrs process, however, of learningabout selfand othersacrivates distrcssin! "ri.li'o, it'"r,"ri"ng", deeplyhcld and unexaminedviews. Severalguidelines supporteffectivc management of this process:tlte needto build particular trustj a facilitative attitude, including empathy: a developmental,phase- specilic framcwork; facilitatoN, emotional self-regulation; and the idca that intcllectual undelstanding is not enough for optiiral leurning anJ change. In addition to thesefive principles,intergroup dialogue practice must accountfor the tensions inhercnt in work that crcatesspaces for jarticipants to challengeand potentially changetheir fundamentalworldviews. Before movilg on to addressing the ethical and psychologicaltensions in intergroup dialogue i.nd guidelinesfor working with emotion,I would like to take a short detour tJestablish-whyernotion is so fundamentalto humaninteraction.

4. Emotion

Drawing on an incrediblerange of tesearch,the philosopher, "emotion Martha Nussbaum, notes that helps us sort out the relationship betweenourselves and the world" (Nussbaum, 2001, p. ll8)- It involves not only cognitive_evaluative, corlsclousprocesses but also non-verbalbiological (Damasio, 1999)an

5. Tensionsregarding change

Intergroup dialogue operateswithin two tensions,one ethical and the other psychological.Its ethical t€nsion stems from philosophical underpinnings:inter- group dialogueholds educationas a practiceof liberation, requiresquestioning the given, and in questioningthe given, supportsconscrous consideration of how one lives in relation to self, others,and the world (Freire, 2002119.10;Zuniga & Nagda, 1993).At the sametime, this practiceis biasedtoward particular theoriJsas to what leadsto and what constitutesa frcer and morejust society(see Schoem et a1.,2001). In essence,we as educatorsmust justify our work as it relatesto engagingothers in processesof changewhen we know that they entail distressand lh-atteneethe sta(u5quo. M. L. Khuri / InteDutiDnat.rounut of Inkrdhwat Retations2A (2004) 595412 601 ,::r.n is psychological ^"I*::::^r1 andconcems ambivalcnce. Or tue onehand, partlcrpantsare drawn toward wanting.to learnabout and relate m-ore autfr"nti"ally to s€tfand others.on thc other,participanrs .." p"ilJ i;-;;;i;J"i." ,n ."t alreadythought to beknown ot i, andoiedict.'u1", ,rr"i;ri"r", """riii i"r"rr_u"rg. contextof intergrouprerations, fn tr," someof theseri-ri"til*'*lil'a,rrl, '' depenoing" whetherone is a on memberof thedominant or subordinarf"r;;;. As fi.amedby the educationalphilosopher *J'"",1"j.i-tf*i* (zo[zltg.lo), membersof both dominantand subordinaie g."ro. *ifi l"-tfrriin"gea to scethe hlT:" and n€eded,ruther :ll* i. than a. iohu-ao uoa ,"J"",-"0,in?" pro1""tor becomingfully, consciouslyhuman. For examptc,rn".y o,h;;;;pf" in the United States,who have,as a whole, been-trained to seethemselves as the'socia I p'v"i supctror,will r:ffi ff ;"#1 TJ;::';'"ff'."-:l"f:i -in orogv Ii'"*'*" ^ 1co"'.to".r-oouioi;, ;ffi);:;#,':'fln'"#l.f:i:ilj'J]ii:lJi|J:].i"1:: dissonance .g.ouf 't as they are asked to the domin"ant thcmselves. .cortsider ir u_un fit" This conflictswith the kind ofai.a^i, ti"irnJru"?r-o?"op|."r."0 toward group, those in oppressrvegroups and which rests ln:ii"j mate l1y" on an odd kind of knowledgeof thoscgroups with greaterpower. lvltnclngthe flrst ethicaltension.would helpeducators conscientiously attend to the.sulferingand hope of bothdominant ""a ,',,f"rAr"i" challengeof er""f.ir"U.'r, "ro ," ,f," alreringone's worldview.. n".".u"ii"g- ii" .-""ini"pry"rlorogi"or tension help us not blindly invest _would in one side of the affectiveequaton or te other. we would neither be naively investedin " I"";;;;;;_;i'lientarity nor caughtup in the despairof intract;bte connictand ilGffi;;;;"at, hatued, delegitimitization,disdain, distancing, ana aelumanization.-wi i, ."""gnirron .r,r,i, balancingact, we can now moveonto examining,orn"guia.tin", ior"*orking emotlon. with

6. Five guidelines

The five following guidelines ^ are not exhaustivebut constitutethe beginningof a frameworkfor working with affcct. Osrcnsiblyorhcrs co"iJ'u" a"""1"p"5. rfr"v "fm presupposefacilitators'active, behavioralengagement such as initiaring ana catrying through on tasks, facilitatingacrivities in appropriateand rimely wayi sensitivity facilitator to roJe,and mindfulnessof quauy ano purposeot verbal intenentlons. 6.l. Ttust

Beforeparticipanrs in intergroup , dialoguearc willing lo open up and allow u)ernsetvesto conlront their worldvicws.thcy must have some sensethat the facilitators (and peers)arc trust-worthy, that is, will ".t U" a""*""irg,lndillerent,-fuany but.will be accepring, ll--i:*tjiatl undersranding,and authentic. social educators{Adams Jr]slrce er al., lg97: Nagda& Zuniga.-H;*"".r,2003; Zuniga & Chesler, 1993)address ..safe.' how to establisha atmospher" ,;i;;Dect of the 602 M.L. Klwi / Inte ational .loumat of Inlercuttuat Retations2A (2AA4)j95412 coursetends to receiveattention only at the begiruring.Facilitators, particularly inexperiencedones, may expectparticipants to jump into high_riskconversations. Additionally, facilitatorsmay ask participantsto jump in. as a rvay to exposewhat they, the padicipants,do not know. Either move can be rnotivatedby a faciJilator striving for pow€r basedon a teacher/studenthierarchy, lack of experience,or by a lack of appreciationfor the role that thrcat plays in such situations (Stephan& Renfro, 2002).One exampleis of having subordinategroup memberstalk about their expedencesof discrimination or prejudice. Another example is of having dominant group memberstalk about the privilegesof beingin the dominanr group. Wren the timing is right, both types of conversationare often empoweringfor subordinate group members and profoundly eye-openingfor dominant group members.When the timing is wrong, participants may feel exposed or used. Focusingtoo early on what participantsare reticcnt to share,arc ivoidirrg, or ale unaware of without the base of a trusting relationshipcannot only be taken as criticismbut can also be confusingand can communicatethat the facilitatorsare the arbitefs of rcality (Newman, 1999).Without a trusting rclationship thcse types of discussioncan lead to umupported,negative affective expeiences and a breakdown m engagementthrough withdrawal or attack. The issueof trust and safetymust alwaysbe in the foregroundand reconsideredin light of how the dialogueprogrcsscs. Saying something is safedoes not maKel[ so (Hooks, 1994). Mistrust and anxiety about the process often leads to what "resistance" facilitatorsperceive as from studenrs.Raiher, reconceptualizingthis so- calledresistance from the participants'perspective does not leadus to back off fio11r difflcult questions,but to hold their trepidationand ambivalencein mind aswe move into new terrairl,In other words,the main function ofresistanceis not to ftustrateus educators.Rather, it is self-prcseryingand helpsto regulateaffective equilibrium. Two scenariosrespectively illustrate unsuccesslul and successfultrust-building. In a people of color and white people dialogue,my co-facilitator and I allowed the studentsto dive into discussingconflictual issues too earlyin the process.We did not promote and follow through with activitiesmeant to build trust through low-dsk explor4tionof self and others.As a lesult, the students,initially eagerto ,,getinto it," backed off from engagingwith each other for another couple of weeks and secmednot to developa level of trust in which thcy could shareof themselvesand toleratea nrore thorough arld activeexploration of differenceand conflict. Similarly, in an Arubs atd Jewsdialogue, which included non-Arabs and non- Jews,students were eager to discussthe Israeli-Palestinianconflict (Khuri, 2004),but my co-facilitatorand I held off sucha discussionunril the third phaseof the course. Our focus on building trust in the begioningallowed the studentsto stay engaged when conflicts in their worldviewsand feelingsof anger and frustration emerged ght there in the classroom.We establishedand maintainedtrust in severalways. Onewas by providing a predictablestructure, clear expectations, and specificcontent matedal. The secondmethod includedmany activitiesallowing studentsto express their concernsand viewpointsand to really learn about who was in the room with them in a non-judgmentalenvironment. These activities were also designedto move from low-risk to high-riskrevelation. Third, we establishcdthe atmosphereof M.L. Khurt / rntemationat Joumat of rnterathutat Retation,-28 (2A0q Sgsaj) 603 norl-judgmentnot simply by declaring jng it so, but by a on our genuin€stance oi. cunosrty and acceptance, which required empathy and Jur abjttl to rnonug" own emohons. ou. This.espectful,facilitative stance suppoded both th; contmuahon a ot trusting relationshipand working with what is oiGn ""ll"d,;r;;;;;;.

6.2. Facilitatorattitude and empathy

Broadly, a facilitator's attitude of genuine understanding,rcspectful cu osity, willingnessto enga-qeon the affective levcl, and th" "o"o;iu;;;;;;"rort of.hon".,y, saying what comes to mind, and suspensionof judgment "if ;, concelr ro support the dimcult task of exptomtion (Burbulis, i993; Kohut, l9g4; Newman, 1999; Rogers, 1989;Sands, 2000;Eltinor & Gerarj, tf$. ffiis iu"iiitottu" ,turr"" links with empathy. For in order to_effectivelyfaciliratc ,ira"n,r.-"*fiorutionr, *" needto hone in on the issues from their perspecrive,to know tlle woi:kingsof their schemas,their logic, their expe ences. _^In.psychotherapy, empathy is a tool, a process,and is potentiallycurative (Wispe, 1987).As a processor tool, it is a mod,eof feeknj"experience uzro anot subjective cxperiencc,line-tuning the adiculation of that oiher,s in cottaUoration with the other, and at thesame tinv rccognizingthat one is a s"palut" leing fiom tt c lifeone.is rrying-accurarety to apperceive(Nussbaum,200lj Kogers,3,]:]_:l."r:"t:b{::live rn Wrspe. -19lJ 1987;Wispe, l9g7). Regarding the curativeelement, being a-ccurately .,powerful unde$tood provides a emoti;al bond between peoplc,, (Kohut, as cited _1984, in Wispe,lggt) and, as such,is on" "f","*i of uutf,orti" relationship(Reid, personal communication,January 26, Z0Oa1.Empaihy rs not a lcelingone. hasloward anotherperson. Nor does empathy'gua;t;e accurate unoersBncrng. Rather, lt ls a relationalstance in which one rcconsrruc[s imaginatively another person'sexperience without evaluation and without regard t_o..whethcl the joyful expclienceis or sad (Nussbaum,2001; Rogers as cited in Wispe,1987). Emp^athy.as defined . . in the intergrouprelations field rnore closelytracks with the idea of feeling compassionfor another and/or being movea to piosociai Ueiiavilr based on taking that other person'spersp€ctive (Stephan & Fintay, 1999:Stephan & Stephan,2001). Empathic processes,nonetheless, underlie theseabilities although empathy does not guaranteeeither: a todurer can feel his way into his victim,s subjectivestates only to enjoy the latter,s suffcring. (Kohut, l9gl, as cited in Nussbaum.200l). Two other facetsof empathyarc crucial to its use in intergroup dialogue.First, empathymust be consideredwithin a cross-culturalftamework_ Althoush I do not know ofany empiricalrcsearch addressing this, the questionarises as ro how difficult is it to empathizewith anotherthe further away one is from the other,scustoms and experiences(Kohut, 1959, 1971 in Wispe, 1987). Moreover, are different social groupsmore given to exercisingempathy than are others?AlthoDgh the intergroup dialogue literaturc has not frained the problem this way, the practic€ of having ,.,,.]]|:ll facilitators of the different cultural groups in the dialoguepotentially increasesthe : ,.' .,:'rl facilitativefunction, or the participants'perception ofempathy, within the dialogueil - -,r,.i,;,,1,;.1 ":,:.!!;'.t1;:, ",1'.lii M.L. Khuri / hienlalional Jomal of hterdLurat Retatio,ts 28 (2004) Sg54t2

shod time frame. The secondfacet entaiis considerirg how facilitatorsuse empathy versushow we encourage studentsto use empathy. Social psychologistssuggest a nrlmberof empathybuilding techniques as a way to i-p.ou" int"rgio,rp.Ju-tioo, ,l, (Stephan& Finley,1997). The facilitators, use ofempathy may more closeJy parallel a therapist'sus€ in that he or she must be more consistentlyattuned to complex.: psychological phenomena throughout the whoie p.ocess. participants' use of l €mpathy must be considercdwithin a dcvelopmentalframework. We cannot rcalisticallyexpect them to have empathy for each othcr without considenngalso thcir generaldevelopmental positions, what stagethey may occupyin termsoi their cultural idcntity development(Helms, 1993), the extent of their social srouo l identification,and/or their particular group,s status vis-d-visthe outgroup (Fiske et al.,2002). In a men and women dialogue,a female facilitator rcacted harshiy to a male:l' participunt who espousedvicws she found personallyoffcnsive. She acknowlcdged wanting to useher knowledgeto dominatehim, yet, in doing so, cndedup engaging; ln a power slrugglewith him that did not allow him thc prospectto explor.ehis views. with his classmates.Her lossofan empathicstance, which doesnot enaailagreemenr. curtailedthc opportunity for the whole classto engagewith this particular student's views in constructiveways. In another men and women dialoeue.a male student made provocdri\estateDents about women'sproper placeas to suggeslthat he enjoyedthe role of classclown. The facilitatorsdid not dismisshis vicwsbur inr,iredi him to elaborateon themwithout the hiddenagcnda of exposingbim. He did nbtl radicallyalter his viewsbut he did stop derailingthe dialogueand allowcdhjmsef t6' engageas one participant with a validvoice among many. Maintaining this empathio stancerequires lacilitators to be able to regulatetheir own emotioDs. .,,.

6.3. Facilintors'self-reoulation l

On the whole,teachels' emotional expericnces do not seemto be a major topic o1 education research(Beatty, 2002) although educatofs' emotional responseshavg been addressedin somesocial justice educationliterature (Adams et al., 1997).In contrast, contemporary psychoanalyticliteratule has quite extensivelyaddress€d, therapists'general emotional processes including specific proccsses around the topics, of race and sexualorientation (Altman, 1995;Creenc, 1986, 1994;Leary, 1991;de Monteflores,1994: Pinderhughes, 1989). A few ernpiricalstudics have shown that th( therapist'semotional well-beinghas important implications for treatment IButter Flasher,& Strupp, 1993).On the whole,however, I suggestthar intergroupdialogur has underestimatedthe offectsof facilitators'emotional processes.It is not difficul to imagine that facilitators' emotional states and responseswould influencethe dialogueand that the dialoguewould influencefacilitators' emotionalprocesses. A,s noted above, facilitators' q,illingnessto engageon the affective level supporr facilitatingothers' exploration. This engagementmay look diiferently for facilitator with different types of personalitiesand cultural backgroundsand may or may n! entail ditect self-disclosureof emotional rcsponses.The point is not to linit ho$/ fucilitatotsengage but rather ro support emotional presence. M_L Khuri / lnter@tionat Joltmat of latercuhhat Retatio6 28 (2004 ) 5g,4t ) 605

Additionally, facilitators must be open to being affected,for example,feeling compassion, angerr or even confusion. This openness,however, retlurres.a paradoxical stance.Facilitato6 have to be able to be emotionally presenr and engagedand, at th€ sametime, be contained.Perhaps not to the degreerequired of "to therapists,facilitaton have be thereand not be thereat the samctime', (Russell. 1998in Stechl€r,2003, p. 711).What he or shedoes with theseemotional experiences is crucial. For example,becoming frustrated, losing patience,blaming thc group or "getting individualswithin the group for not it" or..putting it out there',ale typical rl facilitator responsesto typical, difficult or not so dimcult phasesin intergroup I dialogue.We all feel theseat times.We may be triggeredin sucha way that leadsus to seizeupon one ideaas if it would magicallyunlock tbe dialogueimpasse. We may blame the participants.If only this student would stop denying that oppressron exists.If only this studentwould stop talking or this other start talking. If only this social group would stop taking care of the other social group. Such wishing is understandable.In the faceof suchmoments of frustrution or helplessness,wishing seemslike a feasibleresponse when one feelsas though one can do nothing. In those moments,a facilitator may losethe scnseof what is actuallyfeasible. He or shemay becomeoverwhelmcd, give up, withdraw, get into power struggles,dominate, "teach" or insteadoffacilitate. As a result,participants may pick up on tbe facilitators' emotional needsand ways of relating.They may fall in line with a more politically correctway ofconceivingcultural identity, fear revealingtheir own subjectivities,or. becomedisengage. Becomingaware of arld managingone's own emotionsduring dialoguesessions is perhapsone of the most difficult tasks of a facilitator. Emotional pattems are so doeply rooted plior to adulthood, and often out of consciousawareness, that facilitators vary widely in what emotional skills they bring to their work. Nonetheless,facilitators can be supportedin and outside of the classroom.Being abie to self-regulat€during the sessionsrequires support and work outside of facilitating dialogue.Personal self-rcflection, for examplein the form ofjournaling, and group discussionor supervisionprovides structured opportunitjes to examine reactionsto the dialogue.In addition, permission,as it were, to have emotional responses,helps counteract the tendencyto suppresssuch responsesin the name of neutrality,Attention to one'stone, direction of inquiry, too great or too little focus on a particulartopic or student,and timing and purposeofself-disclosure, may all be usedto alert facilitatorsto thei! emotional proc€ssesas they occur in the dialogue. I From this self-awareness,facilitators may adjust any number of ways in which they are engagingwith participants. In an examplefrom group supewision,a white, femalestudent facilitator became upset about the views of severalAfrican American femaleparticipants regarding African Americanmen datirg white womerr.This facilitator hadjust brokenup with her African American boyfriend. I suggestedshe addressher feelings on both accoults, the personalloss and feelingattacked, and then suggestedshe also consider a broader socialcontext in which someAfrican American womelrmay feel the way they do. At that point, the other superviseesempathically engaged in the conversationacknorvledging both the facilitator's feelingsand the views of the M.L. Kltui / InteurationalJoumat of lhtenttturut Retatiotu28 e0A4) 595412

African American women in the dialogue. The opportunity to explore her own reactionsoutside the dialogue allowed the facilitator to regain a more emparnrc stancewhen sheretumed to the actual dialogue.

6.4. Deuelopmental,phase-specif.c tasks

Intergroupdialogue uses a four-stagcmodel to guidestudents' Iearning (Nagda & Z;.lniga,2003; Thompson et al., 2001; Zlniga & Nagda, t993; Zuniga & Nagda, 2001).Although the literaturedoes not directly link the sequencingof phaseswith the students'affectiveneeds and capacities,the pedagogyinherently supports their unfolding.Training in intergroupdialogue facilitation, in fact, often turns to models in group psychotherapyto conceptualizegroup developmentand facilitators,tasks (Alamo, 2002). Yalom's (1995)model, for example,clearly conveystbe affective tenor of the processesparticular to group formation in his stagesof o entation and dependency;conflict, dominance,and rebellion;and the developmentof cohesion. Thenlst stageofintergroup dialogue focuses on buildingtrusiand issuesofgroup formation. Through discussionand structured activities students addrcss such conccrnsas their hopes and fears about engagingin cross-groupdialogue. The secondstage in intergroupdialogue highlights group similaritiesand differ.encesby inviting studentsto sharetheir peNonalexperiences ofbeing a porsouof a particular background,espccially as it rclatesto growing up. This stageoften seesa qurerawe as studentslisten to eachother rclateexperiences far from their own and iinks with empathybuilding so crucial to improving intergrouprelations (Stephan & Stephan, 2001),The third stageengages students in exploringareas and topics around which the two gloups arc in conffict.For example,a dialoguebetwecn gay, Iesbian, bisexual studentsand heterosexualstudents may addressthe issuesof marriage, religious ordination, or adoption. Affect tendsto be heightenedduring this third phaseand studcntsmay beginto revealfeelings ofambivalence or hopelessnessand helplessness in the face of social injustices,The fourth stage asks studcnts to consider the implicationsof their learningon issuesof socialjustice (Thompson et al., 2001)or to "challenging considerways of injustices"(Nagda & Zuniga.,2003,p. l16) through identifying concreteactions taken individually or through coalition building. This fourth stagemay seerelie! a return to hope, a more measuredstance toward social injusticcsand changeas opposedto naive hope or hopelessness,a pelsistenceof anger,and evensome sadness in the faceof ending the group expeiencc. Tllis developmentalframework is, in my opinion, one of intergroup dialogue's greateststrengths. A morc dcliberateconsideration of affectiveprocesses throughout all four stages,however, has the potential to help educatorsrlot be caughtoff guard by eruptions of heightenedaffect, the lack of affect, the vadety of affective responses,or by differentforms ofresistancethat may appearin later stagesbut have their roots in unresolv€daffective colcerns from earlierstages or may simply reflect ambivalence.Additionally, the greater knowledge facilitators have of group development,the lessthey will be anxious or confusedabout the path eachgroup may take (Yalom, 1995). M.L. Ktluri Intemati@at / roumatoI Intentuurat Rctatnrns 28 (2004) 5954t2 60l 6.5. Inte(Jratian oersusintelleclwtt2ation

"r:fi'#,;ffii:'ffil"T:1;l"l;:*y' thatprejudice mavbe more cosnitivery or uotr,inteig.o,,f uiri;; ;ffi"h"ilil"l,Tf#i"1,%J!;1.,ii avarenessof.inequality and espousal :m*,';:;1i: or.a"_o".u,i" uulu..ir;;;;;"" them Ieelrngor actingin aversivewavs from towardmembers r"i".e."'p"iiilr"'l'i,1""'.ur",of ",lUorainut"g.o;p, (Gaertner f"?ili.ff;,,1,'#;iif}1:"f":1"""i::r:'orrasthev ,n" of theivo a'iserigltt there between members s,"pr,.'',xiot."il;;;il;ilc:^rlflrctsrl. iii, ;.;;;;,#;fi':Jrfi::'i.."i""".,11i:,; j}r::[j:,(*T,.Xll* lntegrationrcfers to buildingcor non-verbalemotioual processes and verbalconcepts as a"noon"lo"lttott letween "og.tiu",rnt.ii""iuu';;;;;: ;;1,il:;";,!lll,l'; oren occursas lHilX;:";t'.i:j*,iii * a responseto dilnculty.in."1-r.*f "agi"g-""J'ia##ring ['il:I"t,ffJ":l"'iJ,i',#'j:i::',:':rT?i';'i;; i;;."]l,iiilii",.'',",,"., "n,o,,oru aoneso';-':;ilJilrt1ru,'i$i1i: l'ffiij racrlrra.tors;ySessrurrr'rely- on experience, intuition, ffTT'J,H: and pe.sonatjuagrn; ; i"r".,n,o" *n... :","li:ij'.ii, falrafgne fe.continuy,n rrar'ro1n1,-1ir"ir,ir"r.,'i,i"i"i,"*,"r lssuels to suggestthat facilitators ,r,'i, :lpacityroriii"g,uti;i t i;;;;;gT.1*,1'.";ij'T#T::,ll':,,,;:::;,il.:;:Xl engagement.We as educators ma! hlve a sTa.tdeal of impacton students' ten-ae-ncyto either-in;il;;;J,L:l tnt"tt"t" materiai sinccthey comein with these tendenciesto b€gin with. *o, resourcesromanage theo.*;;;J""iT;i".rff',fi:"H:ij:_,ni'tl"iT':l ""n ttrarsupports Invrronmcnr movementto*u.J int.grorion.rii"''ri"n '"ir" 'i,", rnre]lectua lization. Addirionally. ,.lnror"., becauseintergroup" OI"f"rr" a didactic c!ntponent,students. mastery of theconcepts may masktheir affectivc experrences. we maymjss thjs phenomcnon for t ,Esonatewithour own ideorogica, #l,jilXXT;llilriT::::*"3"1"n limited - '" """ fi1*"1 timeframemay blind ui to students,int"tt""iuuti"'utioil' focusedon readingsand _-Discusions otf,". fo._, oi"ont*t presentatjontend to ptomote accessto cognitiveprocessing, whereasactivities spec;n""ffy u.ting ,ruo"oO to rcll€ct on their personal experiery or outsideof the dialoguepromote anectrue"onsia"raii;;. more "y"1,iffi;;;;;;#:]n; ;; ;fi,:ili"'Ji##:lTi.'H;;::'Jiil:i:1J.fi the3a,911'r" lntergtoup levels. H;

7. Conclusion

Thealfective layer of intergrotDd n'' ".bv u",r',n",i""ii"""r'";i;";;fi;;il$1:,i:, .p':qucror ensasernent but rrisproroundryinnu"";;J;;;';;.tfiH;;"J:tff,:T,l:-j]l:"Jni:iJif"[:J".j 608 M. L. Kl1uri I Intematioial Journal of Intercultural Retation]J28 (2004 ) jg54\2 at times,facilitators' awareness. Additionally, studentsvary in thcir capacityto link €motion and cognition, a factor that we cannot conhol. Students, abilitv- nonetheless,to engagein dialogue on typically taboo subjectsdoes not tum # any one particular activity, interpretation,inteNention, or piece of information. Facilitating intergroup dialogue is partly an art based on experienceand "creativity, on spontan€ity,[and] intuition" (Lichtenberg, Lachmann, & Fosshage, 1996, p. 88) but also requires us to have particular theorctical and empirical knowledgebases. Adding knowledgeand skills in working with affcctiveprocesses enhancesthe dialoguequality in subtlebut important ways. Affective engagemenl that is the processby which we come to understandwho and what is important to our goalsand projects(Nussbaum, 2001), whether on an individual or group level,is the relationalmatrix in which studentscrcate rrew levcls of understanding,ways of relating,and ways of taking action in the world (Gurin, Nagda, & Zuniga, 2004). For the most part, this paperhas focusedon principlesof working with affectand Iess so on specifictechniques, although the latter is deservingof more detailed elaboration.Principles and techniques,or coursc,inform cachot-her and can only be artinci.rlly separated.Together, they enlargeour pp$pectives(Lichtenberg et ar., 1996)as we make our way with our studentsthrough the complexinteractions of intergroupdialogue. In particular,the focuson trust as an on-goingprocess within a developmentalcontext supports fostering an overall positive intergroup dialogue experiencc.Trust, as a primary condition for relationship,supports particjpants' ability to stay authenticallyengaged even when the dialoguogets tense,confusing, unpleasant,injurious, or hopeless.Through an empathic stance, we attend to students'potential distress, ambivalence, and hopewhich helpsus raframeand work €ffectivelywith resistancc,defensiveness, and negativeaffect as central and not subversiveto positiveintergroup interactions.Facilitators' ability to managetheir own affectiveprocesses minimizes the effectsof thcir affect, freesup more psychic energy,ifyou will, to devoteto the dialogue.The developmentalframework provides us with an understandingof how group processesunfold and allows us to gaugcthe quality of studentssharing, inqui ng, and respondingin relation to the particular intellectualand affectivetasks of eachstage. Finally, the abovc guidelinessupport working toward cognitive and affectiveintegntion of thc material necessaryfor optimal learning and change.

8. Researchimplicatioos

The complexityof emotionalphenomena and of thc task of resealchingin and about this dynamic context of intergroup dialoguepresents important methodolo- gical concerns.How can we reasonablycapture participants'emotional processes without focusingso narrowly that we ignore or miss important aspectsof what is happening?On the other hand, how can we bring some clarity to the potential morass of data? We might start with the question, what aspect of emotion m educationalintergroup contact do we want to measure?Do we want to attend lo affectiveprocesses or content?What about the impact of facilitato$' role and M.L. Kturi Intemationat / Jonfuf of Inte..attutut Retatiotzr28 (2004) 5954j2 609 emotions?In terms ofprocess,do we want to analyzeth€ full emotionaipicture, as it werc, or do we want to focus only on momentsof heightenedaffect? Horv do we determine thesemoments? Would it be betterto examin; the peaksin r€lation to the valleys? In terms of content, do we want to try and differcntiate types of emotional "negative', r,esponses?Do we focus only on affectsuch as anger,anxiety, or sadness? joy, What about relief, or hope? What about ambivalence?Do we wanr to differentiatesourc€s of emotion?Is it intergroup,interpemonal, or intrapsychically derived? Although we may crcateconceptual cladty about what is emotion and what we want to study, a further complication of emotion entails the tacit nature ol its communication,that is, it is highly dependenton relationalcontexts (Orange, 1995). Additionally, peoplevary in thcir ability to experience,identify, riescribe,and decode enlottonalresponses in differentcontexts (Leyens et a|.,2002).Students may not be willing or ableto verballyreveal what they ar.eexpcriencing right in the moment.As an example,during phasc two of a dialogue,strong disagreementbetween whjtg Americanand African Americanstudents emerged for the lirst time. Thb facilitators and a couple of pa icipants noted the heightencd tension, yet most of the participants sharedthe response',interesting"when asked to ptovideone word to ..Interesting" describehow they felt about the classthat day. is not an cmotion but rather an evaluativedescription ofsomething externalto the participant!yer tr may indirectly expressparticular affectiveexpeiences or it may expressthe participants, relativecloseness or distancefrom affectiveexpcriences. How and what are we ro infer fiom that word in terms of emotional processesol content? Do dill.eront participantsmean different things with that sameword? Researchingaffective phenomena in intergroupclialogue presents us witir comptex challengesthat may, nonetheless,reward us with rich undirstandine of emotional processesin educational, intergroup contact and how these ,"rponr", rlloy fundamentallyrelate to learningoutcomes and improving jntergroup r€lations.

References

Adams,M.,B€ll,L.A.,&crimn,P.(Eds.).(t99?).Teachnqfordiue\ityantsoctutjustice:Ananrtnta,. New York: Rouiledge. Alarno, C. (2002). Inkryroup .lialogues: Cohceptuatitations.strutesies. and pedasogies.Unpubtistred

Allporl, G. (1979).The katurc of preju.lice(25rh ed.). Readins, MA: Addison-Westey. Alhan, N. (1995).The ahalystin the iMet dty: Race,cl6s,.'nd cuhurethroush a psyhoanotytictenr. Hillsdale,NJ: AnalyticPress. Beale,R., & Schoern,D. (2001).The conrentprocessbatance in inlerBroupdiatogue. rD D. Scboem,& S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intetgroup dialosue: Dcliberatibe democru.r tu sctloot, cottese, conmutlit), ana h'otkplace(pp.26G219). Ann Arbor, MI: Universityof Michisanpress. Beatty, B. R. (2002).tuotiohal episrenolosiesand educationatleadership: A conceptut ftatnevork. papel presenteda! lhe Annual Meeringof the AmericanEducationat Research Assocjalion. N€w Orleans. LA. Beebe,B. (2004).Faces in relafion:A casestudy. Psyclrc@abNit Diatosues. t4(t\. t-5t.

g$S,{iiii $ H sI

€ t f I : i ;iisffs$iis s ':I

: : { '! iliiii;i;il;i iEr?5;;if;!;;l