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 education,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-<hilddyad to intergroupinteractions.Most empiricalwork on affectin intergrouprelations primarily focuseson assessingreactio[s to imagined or actual, on€-timelaboratory encountersand examinesthe reactionsof only dominant group members.In contrastto experimentalwork, intergroupdialogue involves compiex dynamicswithin the context of struc[uted,sustained, face-to-face Jonversation amongreal people of dominantand subordinatesocial identity groups.Recon]menoallolls !o improv€intergroup contact include intervention at the leveloicinod;n. Althoughit doesnot focus systematicallyor! the aflectivelayer, intergroupdialogues' philosophy ino struclure prime th€ ground to do so. This paperproposes a set of principlesto wori with emotronrn intergtoupdialogle that would provideways (l) to fosteroverall positive iniergroup conlact, (2) to work effectivelywirh negativeaffect and &sistanceas integraland nof suou"r"ruero positive intergroup interactions,(3) to attend to Lhe force thit ambivalenceexerts on *-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 multicultural education, intergroup dialogue is one method to improve intergroup relations. 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 psychology,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 African Americans(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