Author: drshemikabrooks

First Time Facilitator

as published in the Fall 2022 Newsletter of the Mid-Atlantic Group Psychotherapy Society

I facilitated a professional development group for the first time.

No, that’s a gross understatement. 

I developed a Process Group Immersion (PGI) program for trainees in college and university counseling center settings, wherein they would be immersed in process groups through a role as a 2-day, marathon, process group participant– but with only other graduate-level clinical mental health trainees. This professional development program brought together (virtually), across various regions of the east coast, a number of trainees from college/university training sites, a select number of trainees who registered independently, and a team of talented and skilled group facilitators. In addition to founding and coordinating PGI, I was one of the facilitators…

While I was putting this program together using my big picture, systems-oriented, logistically thinking brain, I wanted to control for everything that I possibly could: selecting facilitators for the program that have ample experience in group process AND who could be trusted to respond appropriately to the identities and needs of the participants through a lens of social justice and equity; not having folx in a group together from the same training program; not having trainees in a group led by a facilitator from their current training site; leaving it up to each site to determine if this would be optional, expected, required; addressing the REQUIREMENT to respect self and others, and identifying potential consequences of breaching that agreement. 

Along the way, I faced a distinct choice point: do I participate in the program as a process group facilitator, or no? For some this would be a no-brainer, but at the forefront of my consciousness was the fact that I had never facilitated a professional development group before. 

Participated? Oh yes, plenty of times, for over a decade.

Facilitated!? No. Never.

I went back and forth in my mind, but ultimately I decided not to allow the fear and discomfort to hinder me. I decided to lean into this new role, and to use it as an opportunity. Dare I say, for my own professional development!? ::insert joke rimshot here::

So I put myself on the list to do it. And then the program was put together and the day came and I had to DO IT! Aaaaaaaaah!

It was bad enough that members of my group came in with an impression of me already: “so-and-so said you’re the best, so I’m looking forward to observing your style and learning from you.” THEY SAID WHAT?!??!? That person’s obviously wrong.

I already felt very anxious about not living up to the minimum expectation, and then THIS!

Be prepared to be disappointed.

Despite that I kept telling myself, “No pressure, but PRESSURE!” … I facilitated the group anyway. I just kind of forgot about who was in the “room” and what they might expect and what they might know, and I applied my knowledge and experience, and I facilitated a process group.

In reflecting back, I realize that to the greatest extent possible, my initial hesitation had to do with imposter syndrome: I already doubt myself a lot when it comes to my work with patients/clients. And you want me to demonstrate my clinical approach to people who might already know what it’s supposed to look like? You want me to intentionally expose myself to people who probably have models of how it’s done right???

In the quintessential way, I was worried that I would be exposed as a fraud. 

But that didn’t happen. As a matter of fact, I had moments, myself, of internal dialogue, like that endemic in the Black call-and-response culture:  “YES SHEMIKA!”; “preach!”; “that’s good”; and so on and so forth. And because of that, I believed the participants of my group when they said they had an amazing experience; and it was hard, but very rewarding; and they learned a lot; and they felt privileged to have had the opportunity to be a part of the program. 

Logistically, I would not have done it without having my people in my corner: my advisory board, my consultants, my facilitation team that I had full confidence in.  

Realistically, I could not have done it without the training programs and participants signing up.

Holistically, I could not have done it without just doing it. 

I look forward to the opportunity to just do it again. And maybe even again and again.

*Click here to learn more about the PGI program on the Training and Consultation Page.*

My Apologies…

A little over a week ago, I was the featured speaker of a roundtable discussion event put on by the Mid Atlantic Group Psychotherapy Society’s Anti-Racism Committee. I had to be talked into it, as I have not typically been chomping at the bit to do anything that would quite clearly put me in the spotlight in this way; but I was and still am honored that my colleagues and friends at MAGPS believed in me enough to entrust me with this task.

I thought long and hard about what the topic of discussion would be, and late one night, the title came to me:

It’s (Been) in the Room: Bias in the Form of Blindness, Differential Care, and the Maintenance of Racist Structures in Practice.

It came to me in complete form, all at once. And it felt final. It felt right.

…But it wasn’t.

It was not until a couple of days ago that, while reflecting with colleagues on the roundtable discussion and the reflection paper that I read (see: Anyone Else post), a respected colleague pointed out my error. She very rightfully shared with me that the title of the roundtable discussion contains a figurative reference to “blindness” that could be experienced as a microaggression to those who are physically blind or have other visual impairments. She was absolutely right.

With the way my brain works, sometimes there are these grand ideas that come to me in a way that seems so comprehensive that I do not think about the potential impact they might have other than that which I intend. But as always when it comes to microaggressions, it is the IMPACT that matters most and should always be centered, not the intent. In my desire to focus on the ways in which racism and bias have been overlooked throughout the history of mental health, and even until today, I caused harm. I clearly overlooked the ways in which my use of the word “blindness” in the title IS a microaggression. And I have been guilty of overlooking similar phrases and the impact on ability/disability status as an aspect of identity for some.

There are plenty of other words or phrases that could have been used instead of my having made reference to the blind in my title: IGNORANCE, SILENCE, INATTENTION, AVERTED GAZE, INSENSITIVITY, AVOIDANCE, INSENSITIVITY, EGOCENTRISM, COMPLICITY…

It was and is my responsibility to not engage in the business as usual of employing language that is harmful to others. So I take full responsibility for any harm that resulted from my word choice. I recognize the impact of this microaggression and at least some of who might be hurt by it. If anyone is interested in conversing about the impact this had on you specifically, I welcome and invite that contact. And I will hold myself accountable to self-reflect and course-correct; to make every effort to not engage in the same harm; and to be more inclusive in my language for any event titles, speeches, talks, etc. moving forward.

Sorry You Missed It!

It’s (Been) in the Room:

Bias in the Form of Blindness, Differential Care, and the Maintenance of Racist Structures in Practice

MAGPS; Group Therapy; Mid Atlantic Group Psychotherapy Society, Anti-Racism Committee, Roundtable Discussion Event; It's (Been) in the Room
Flyer from MAGPS Roundtable Discussion featuring Dr. Brooks.

I’m sorry for those of you who wanted to attend the roundtable discussion, but were unable to make it! I read a reflection paper that I wrote about my experience at AGPA Connect 2021 Large Group. The reading was followed by a discussion.

To read the reflection paper, go to “Anyone Else?” post, linked here.

Here’s somewhat of a recap of points made in response to and in reflection of what was discussed:

Unconscious bias is in the therapy room when we work with our clients. This is a fact that has started to be more recognized in the last year due to the blatant acts of unjust, violent, and otherwise harmful behaviors towards Black and Brown people. It’s definitely in the room. But more importantly, it’s BEEN in the room.

We’ve seen bias play out through the remnants and lasting effects of slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc. We’ve seen cultural appropriation taking shape in many forms, while the cultural origins of these trends continue to be denigrated. We’ve seen it with parents and caregivers who encourage (and take part in) their teens and pre-teens’ obsession with K-Pop to the extent of singing Korean songs with an air of fluency; and those same folx frowning at the use of the Spanish language in America.

We’ve seen it in White people being fed Burger King or allowed to go to their homes to sleep immediately after murdering innocent people, in contrast to the countless people of color who are killed in immediate judgment of the “crimes” they are committing in the moment. Though these examples be more on the extreme, bias does not only play out in what we see in the news. These issues are and have been present in our therapy spaces and in the mental health field.

In early mental health conditions (e.g., drapetomania – the mental disorder that “caused” enslaved people to make efforts to flee captivity; i.e., the “runaway slave” disorder).

. . . in contrast to racism not being considered for inclusion as a mental health disorder due to its almost ubiquitous (read: popular) nature.

It shows up in the forms of blindness, differential care, and the maintenance of racist structures in practice.

EXAMPLES

BLINDNESS

  • The privilege of oblivion, or overlooking harm being done to others.
  • Not having “seen it” until George Floyd, Teyana Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery.
  • Assuming that your experience is the experience.
  • The use of color-blind theoretical approaches without consideration for client identities and cultural ties.
  • The fact that “I have clients of color” is the mental health equivalent of “I have a [insert BIPOC identity] friend”
    • Especially in response to feedback about biased or racist behaviors.
  • Pretending that the systems in place were not created to maintain dynamics of power and oppression.

BIAS

  • Different responses to similar behaviors based on identity.
  • Responding to the discomfort of White people more empathically than to the lack of safety felt by BIPOCs.
  • Reliance on “the theory,” “the model,” or “the research” rather than on the lived experience of individuals holding minoritized identities.
  • Maintaining the status quo because “that’s the way it’s always been.”
  • Favoring intent over IMPACT.
  • Misconstruing what is clearly communicated by BIPOCs in order to minimize their concerns.

MAINTENANCE OF RACIST STRUCTURES

  • White silence.
  • Pursuing inclusion and/or equality over EQUITY.
  • Pursuing diversity rather than SOCIAL JUSTICE and dismantling problematic systems.
  • Insistence on BIPOCs being “included” in harmful experiences in order for learning to occur, despite repeated reports of (re-)traumatization.
  • Pursuing to be labeled an ally rather than an accomplice towards the mission of challenging racism.
  • Highlighting and elevating position and tenure over reasoning.
  • The use of BBIPOC folx to put forth point that counters equity and progress.
  • Maintaining problematic contracts; not changing course; rigidity.

Mental health has been one of the tools of white supremacist culture in this country from its inception. We are often encouraged to “stick to the model” and to what has the most “evidence base” for the sake of reaching the “golden standard” of treatment and maintaining the integrity of particular approaches. But most of the traditional theories do not appropriately examine the influence of culture or systems. And then those same theories get applied in a biased way, furthering the gap precluding competence. We must take an active approach to challenge the status quo if we ever expect to truly live up to the “do no harm” principle of our ethics for clinical practice — especially those of us (read: you) who have the abundance of privilege and power.

Anyone Else?

My Experience was that AGPA Connect 2021 Large Group was a Dumpster Fire; ANYONE ELSE?

AGPA connect (and previously, the AGPA Annual Meeting) has held Large Group during the three-day conference for many many years. Since before I started attending in 2013, the 3 sessions of Large Group have been held during the designated lunch hours of the first two conference days and during the final (afternoon) session time on the third and final day of the conference. This year, 2021, with the necessary shift to a virtual format, Large Group was offered for the first time, in my experiences, in time slots that did not conflict with other aspects of organizational involvement— particularly the annual business meetings of the organization’s Special Interest Groups (SIGs), which have typically also taken place during the lunch hours of the first two conference days. Now I have found the most community and connection in AGPA through involvement with the SIGs, and so I have always prioritized attending the meetings of what I refer to as “my home-base SIGS” on the first two conference days; in the past 4 or 5 years, I’ve attended only session 3 of Large Group. With it not competing with SIG meetings, this year, AGPA Connect 2021, was the first year that I have been able to attend all three sessions of Large Group during the AGPA annual conference.

AGPA Connect goes through 2-year cycles of large group facilitators. AGPA Connect 2021 was the 2nd year of the Large Group from a Systems-Centered Framework, and was facilitated by a team consisting of four White clinicians.

As stated by the title, my conclusion, after having (finally) attended Large Group in its entirety, is that Large Group at AGPA Connect 2021 can only be succinctly described as A DUMPSTER FIRE.

*******

Sidebar: Because defensiveness and fragility are natural counter-responses to criticism, especially in discussions of the impact of race, racism, and specifically how white supremacy shows up, it feels important, before I go any further, in order for my words to be taken in, for me to declare the following:

  • My observations, my feedback, and my conclusions are not an indictment of the character of the four Large Group facilitators.
  • I do not know these individuals (the 2020–21 Large Group facilitators) personally, and have not directly shared much space with them professionally.
  • I am speaking to my own observations and experiences as a cis, het, able-bodied, brown-skinned, Black-presenting, Black-identifying, Christian, English-speaking, highly educated, (presumably) neuro-typical, African-American woman who has been involved with AGPA for nearly 10 years.
  • I am centering the first-person felt IMPACT, and not making an effort to name, explain, or highlight intent.
  • These reflections include my best recollection of some statements that I heard from fellow members and from the Large Group facilitators. Some of these statements felt as if they were burned into my memory, and thus, it is my hope hope that I captured the words of my colleagues.

#nowbacktotheregularlyscheduledprogram…

*******

Again, Large Group was facilitated through the lens of Systems Centered Theory (SCT).

A bit of background to summarize SCT, in an admittedly oversimplified way that does not honor the nuances of the approach: One person shares whatever they’d like, and indicates they are finished by saying, “Anyone else?” The next person first reflects back what they heard the previous person say and checks to make sure they captured “the heart of it” accurately. Then that (2nd) person shares how they related to what the previous person shared, OR expresses a different viewpoint or experience by asking the group if they are ready for difference to be explored. If two or more people try to speak at the same time, they must come to an agreement about who should speak next by a process of negotiating. And so on, and so forth. #functionalsubgrouping.

Immediately following each Large Group session at AGPA Connect 2021, a short debriefing period was held, in which members were asked to share a Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, Surprise, Learning, or Discovery.

And with that providing some context…

*******

It started off slowly and escalated VERY quickly. To sum it up, there was an outcry in response to the way in which the Large Group was being facilitated, nearly from the very beginning.

What had happened was [sic]:

DAY 1:

A few minutes in, after reflecting back the previous person’s expression about feeling anxious in Large Group, a self-identified Brown member shared in that feeling of anxiety. This member added a personal experience of feeling a lack of safety, due to there being four white facilitators— especially after explicit feedback was given in the last year about the need for more racially (and otherwise) diverse representation across the Large Group facilitators specifically and in AGPA leadership more broadly. This expression was followed by a specific question posed by this member (approximated): Can you say whether or not you took that feedback into consideration or made any efforts to add a BIPOC facilitator to your team for this year? That question was immediately followed by a modified request (approximated): Maybe you can’t answer that question within the model that’s being used, but can you at least acknowledge what I’m saying in that the presence of an all-White facilitation team using this very restrictive and limiting model can feel oppressive? And that some people, including me and especially other BIPOCs and otherwise minoritized people, are feeling unsafe as a result?

It was an explicit request for acknowledgement of an experience of harm felt by an identified subgroup within the larger group, and it came with lots of head nods across the multiple screens in the Zoom room.

What followed was an intervention that is very consistent with SCT: Can someone please reflect back what that person said, and either join with them or express a difference?

Then came the immediate outrage. Lots of folx expressed frustration with both the lack of acknowledgement and the oppressiveness that was experienced in efforts to power forward in the functional subgrouping process, especially considering the felt experience of harm that was being verbalized. BIPOCs were speaking out. White people were speaking out. Trans, nonbinary, and queer folx were speaking out. Cis folx were speaking out. Many people holding many identities were pretty clearly communicating a resounding YES to the question, “Anyone else?” After repeated direct requests for the acknowledgement from the facilitators, each followed by the same redirection intervention, some members stated that if no acknowledgement was given, it would feel too unsafe to stay and they would leave … and then when there was still no acknowledgement, they left. And a good number of others followed.

An overwhelming majority of those who were speaking were saying, this is an outrage and the harm occurring in Large Group year after year MUST be put to a stop in every way possible. Space was being taken by those who wanted social justice to prevail, and that space overwhelmingly and directly challenged the power structure in place with the Large Group leadership team.

Towards the end of Day 1, silent members’ voices were invited in (by the facilitators), and some members began to express frustration about the way the session played out from a different perspective. One person said, “It felt to me like there was no room for difference, and so I felt like there was no room for my voice to be heard.” And of course in response to that person’s “Anyone else?,” multiple people chimed in to agree.

And then in the debriefing, there was discussion about the ways in which those who spoke the most throughout the group did not want to participate within the present structure of the group, and that there was an attack on the SCT model being used.

HOWEVER, it was evident (to me) from the beginning that the narrative that was being put forth was one that falsely relied on the SCT model to explain the absence of cultural humility and responsiveness to the group as a whole, including a very present and vocal subgroup. There was a repeated, active rejection of invitations to acknowledge the ways in which White supremacy culture was playing out in the Large Group and negatively affecting its members. Of note: multiple other times throughout the session, the facilitators freely interjected to offer observations or comments about what was being said, and ultimately redirected back to the task at hand. Yet, when directly asked to acknowledge an experience of harm, powering forward with, Can someone else reflect what that person was saying, was another instance of harm and a demonstration of the very thing that caused the lack of felt safety being expressed. Multiple interjections were made by the facilitators to acknowledge and center the intent of the model, but not to recognize the impact of how it was being carried out – to simply say, “I hear you.”

DAY 2:

Day 2 was quite a bit less explosive with regard to challenges to the leadership, but was equally as emotionally charged. The session started with somewhat of a review by the leadership team of the anger and hurt expressed in day one. And as a part of the summary, there was an acknowledgement that there was a request made for an acknowledgement with regard to the racial makeup of the leadership team.

Already, I was thinking, too little too late – at that point, what needed to be acknowledged was the re-traumatization that was perpetuated in Day 1. But I digress…

Then the group was immediately invited to continue…At some point in the process, after someone expressed confusion, a White person reflected back in accordance with the model; then stated that they were also confused, but for a different reason, and that they were feeling uncomfortable as a result. This member shared that they were not present for session 1 the day before, and so they did not know what was really going on. This member asked the facilitators for an update. And can you guess what the facilitator who responded said?

Of course they said, Can someone please reflect back what they said and either join with them or express a difference?  Right!?

WRONG. A White person expressed discomfort and requested an update, and one of the facilitators IMMEDIATELY validated the confusion and discomfort that were expressed, and provided an update. And it happened to be the exact same facilitator who insisted just the day before that the group stay within the model and reflect back what the previous person said when a request was made by a BIPOC member, as well as at multiple times earlier in this session.

Hmmmmm, interesting.

With continued SCT process being applied as it was, eventually a BIPOC group member made this powerful statement: “I feel like I paid for the opportunity to be retraumatized.” That resonated intensely.

…

Later still, with discussion of “alternative ways of being” in Large Group, a BIPOC member reflected back, then shared that they could relate, sharing, as “an alternative way of being,” their felt experience of this Large Group as “a perversion” and an assaultive experience to BIPOCs. One of the group facilitators suggested that this member was not reflecting what the previous person said, but introducing a difference, and that they needed to request that shift from the group. The member who spoke just prior to the previously-stated BIPOC member— the one who introduced “alternative ways of being”— said in response, “Actually, [they are] expressing an alternative way of being in Large Group, and it feels to me like it does relate to what I shared.” Here was yet another overt example of the facilitators causing harm, as they made erroneous declarative statements that rejected the heart of what was being said by a BIPOC member…

Not at all uncommon.

Later, just before time was ending for the 2nd session, there was a charged moment wherein this writer attempted to speak, but another group member— a White group member— attempted to speak at the same time as I did. I honestly didn’t feel like “negotiating” with this person, so I muted myself; but multiple group members in succession expressed a preference to hear from me over the White member. When this member asked why folx were asking to hear from me rather than them, multiple people unmuted and said almost in chorus, “Because she’s Black.” With that, the member who was competing with me for speaking time muted, and so I shared. I reflected back and endorsed the feeling expressed by the previous speaker, and pointed out, that there was an overt difference in the way in which a BIPOC woman’s felt harm and lack of safety and request for acknowledgement was rejected and redirected, and a white woman’s discomfort was affirmed and her request immediately responded to.

When I finished speaking, the same White member immediately “attempted” to reflect back what I said, but suggested that I was saying that the “technicality” and “structure” of the SCT model were problematic for BIPOCs and made BIPOCs feel uncomfortable or unsafe. This felt consistent with a  pattern of awareness-raising by a minoritized person or ally, mis-reflection by a White or otherwise significantly privileged person, and the need for clarification. I again specified that I did not believe that it was anything about the SCT model that was inherently problematic, but the racial bias that was being enacted that was causing harm. As a matter of fact, I expressed outrage that my words would have been interpreted as structure is too hard for BIPOCs. And I directly stated (again) that the facilitators, and others who were misinterpreting the heart of what was being said by vulnerable members, were hiding behind the model as an excuse for their biases. And then, as if on cue, the time boundary was declared for Session 2.

Even in the debriefing that followed, the differential treatment continued to be perpetrated. When asked to offer a Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, Surprise, Learning, or Discovery, a White member started out by saying that they were aware that what they were going to say was “taking it in a different direction” and not going to fit within that stated structure, but that they wanted to share that the multitude of “black boxes” (a reference to non-video participants) was making them feel anxious and uncomfortable throughout the session. One of the facilitators responded by offering that person another option, and the concept of a Placeholder was introduced into the Large Group debriefing categories.

But of course, when a BIPOC member spoke next and shared feeling as if their “brain [was] shut down because of the topic and [their] inability to attend to all of what [was] being pointed out,” the facilitators responded with, “So is that a surprise, a learning, a satisfaction, a dissatisfaction, or a discovery?”

Why wasn’t a Placeholder offered as an option for this person?

DAY 3:

The final Large Group session  had the fewest number of attendees (as is consistent with a theme from previous years), and noticeably fewer folx with visible minoritized identities than in the previous two sessions. It started with the facilitators extending an invitation into the space for those who were holding differences that the group could explore, as well as for those who had not yet spoken, to share. What followed was a noticeable succession of White folx sharing that they supported and felt safe within the SCT model as it was being applied, and that the expressions of anger, especially in the first session, made them uncomfortable and/or frustrated. An actual statement that was made: “I think they were angry and attacking, and that makes me anxious”— with erroneous direct reference again to these perceived reactions (anger and attacking) being directed towards the SCT model. (Also, what do you mean THEY!?). More White folx related and shared that they felt there was more space for them to speak today. And each time, they said, “Anyone else?”, inviting those with a similar stance to echo their expressions (of White privilege as experienced in a White supremacist culture).

BUT ONCE AGAIN, THE OUTCRY THAT WAS STARTED ON DAY ONE WAS NOT GENUINELY ABOUT BIPOCs NOT SUPPORTING THE MODEL.

… I digress.

A statement was made by a White member who clearly expressed and demonstrated allyship throughout the Large Group sessions; this person suggested that “the structure of this model makes White people safe, but not People of Color.” Suddenly, the facilitators introduced the concept of a “mind-read” and one facilitator then made a request: “Can you formulate this statement instead as a yes or no question so that we can then ask the group to test the reality of that mind-read?” The facilitator said they wanted to “collect data” from all those present about whether or not all the White people in the group felt safe in the Large Group using SCT.

Now the facilitators were interested in “data collection.”

But HOLD UP, HOLD UP, HOLD UP. Where did this “data collection” concept come from? And why couldn’t it have been used in session one to provide data about the sentiment that started this whole bit of madness? Couldn’t the original anxiety and lack of safety have been posed as a mind-read and checked out with the group, so that the facilitators would have had “data” about the resonance of those feelings? Hmmmmmm.

…Again, I digress.

Multiple attempts were made by the facilitators to rephrase the original point in order to assess whether or not all the White people felt safe in the Large Group space as opposed to the HEART of what was being expressed, which was that White privilege continued to prevail in the SCT model as applied. In other words, all things considered, the way Large Group was being facilitated inherently made participating feel safer for White people than for BIPOCs, just as White privilege tends to do in larger society.

Then one member then pointed out that each time a White person aligned and allied with people who expressed pain in this Large Group as led by these facilitators, that’s when “interventions” seemed to be deemed appropriate. Then the same member asked some interesting questions and made some interesting observations: How many interventions (read: interruptions) came during discussions of white people feeling comfortable in the structure and in the space? (Few-to-none). And how many came during folx expressing resonance, compassion, and empathy for the experiences of those (mostly BIPOC and otherwise minoritized people) who expressed a lack of safety? (Many). How many times was the discomfort of white people tended to, while the harm towards BIPOCs was not only ignored, but perpetuated? (Many).

A pretty good question was then posed by a facilitator: “Can you be specific so that we can work in reality?” But this came in direct response to a member sharing their perception of a general theme of perpetuated harm and re-traumatization being ever-present in Large Group over the course of the three-day conference. When the differential treatment and differential levels of care were being directly pointed out, once again, additional detail and specificity was being requested by the facilitators. But racism is not the shark(s) that we need to point out in the water over and over. Racism is the water. And a vocal subgroup of the Large Group members was repeatedly trying to get that across.

Towards the end of this final session, when yet another White person posed a question to the facilitators and it was answered without hesitation, there was one last outcry by the person who was denied the same on Day 1. This member very vulnerably said, “You have no idea how this has affected me for the last three days.” With this calling out of the hurt that was repeatedly perpetuated and yet another request for acknowledgement, the facilitator who had been the most vocal, and experienced as the most hurtful, responded by saying, “I don’t like it when you feel hurt.”

I’ll say that again: the facilitator said, “I don’t like it WHEN YOU FEEL HURT.”

Again, no acknowledgement by this facilitator of their part, or of the vocalized impact on and the felt experience of this member and others. “I’m sorry you feel hurt,” as opposed to, “I’m sorry my behaviors hurt you.”

The final session wrapped up with a debriefing that involved the same dynamics and processes that were present throughout. The facilitators were offered feedback regarding observations of their internalized racism and bias that was evidenced by blindness, differential care, and the maintenance of racist structures. But they continued to say that they were just following the model.

Conclusion / #TLDR:

I’ll stay within the structure of the AGPA Connect 2021 Large Group from a Systems-Centered Framework debriefings, and offer my final reflections in the form of a Satisfaction, a Dissatisfaction, a Surprise, a Learning, and a Discovery:

Satisfaction: Many more White folx than I have experienced in the past (and therefore, more than I expected in this experience) demonstrated allyship, and spoke against the overt harm and re-traumatization as well as the expressions of White privilege and White- (and other-) fragility that were occurring throughout Large Group.

Dissatisfaction: The reality that was highlighted as a theme in this experience (as consistent with past experiences in Large Group and historically in larger society) is that White people’s discomfort tends to be prioritized (as determined by the acknowledgement and response) over the pervasive sense of anxiety, harm, and the lack of safety expressed by, or in support of, minoritized people.

Surprise: For the first time in my experiences, it wasn’t the members of Large Group causing the rage that built quickly within me and others who participated. Instead, it was the repeated failures of the team of facilitators to apply the structure of the group in a consistent way and to provide a frame that was safe-enough for ALL participants to engage in the Large Group experience in an equitable way.

Learning: It doesn’t matter if it’s the majority of the large group members or the minutia of its leadership that are causing harm with regard to the overall felt experience; re-traumatization is perpetuated by agents of oppression and the rage evoked in the targets of oppression can be all-consuming.

And finally,

Discovery: The leadership of the Large Group (and therefore, AGPA in its entirety) has not yet learned and incorporated a fundamental truth: Learning and development for the group cannot be prioritized at the expense of the re-traumatization of a subgroup of its members.

I believe that this truth is necessary for any semblance of overall competence in clinical practice; I think it’s a required component of demonstrating the “do no harm” principle in our ethics; and I think it is one step towards demonstrating the levels of cultural competence necessary for the progress of our patients and of mental health professions as a whole.

ANYONE ELSE?

© 2021 by Dr. Shemika Brooks