TPC-Journal-V2-Issue1

50 The Professional Counselor \Volume 2, Issue 1 as well as its regular employment in multicultural education lends the theory for investigation as an effective theoretical grounding for training culturally and advocacy competent counselors. Cultivating Critical Consciousness: A Developmental Process Critical pedagogical approaches reflect an appreciation of the socializing role of seasoned professionals and educators (Cornelius, 1998; Prilleltensky, 1989), the non-traditional and relational nature of the instructor–student relationship, and the developmental nature of the process of consciousness raising and becoming advocates (Ford & Dillard, 1996; Kathleen May, personal communications, 2006; Sleeter et al., 2004). Indeed, Ford and Dillard (1996) described multiculturalism in these terms: “… it is more than just a learning process, it is a socialization process that involves qualitative degrees of self-development” (p. 5). Sleeter et al. (2004) emphasized the importance of scaffolding students in this process of reflection on their own and others’ identities relative to social positions and experiences of privilege and oppression. The theoretical (Bemak et al., 2011; Green et al., 2008; Hof et al., 2009; Rasheed Ali, Ming Liu, Mahmood, & Arguello, 2008; Sleeter et al., 2004) and research literature (Hays et al., 2007; Murray et al., 2010; Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005; Paylo, 2007) has been consistent in the valuing of experiential learning as a means of cultivating social consciousness among students, and affording opportunities to practice and engage in advocacy. Developing a Social Justice Orientation Broido (2000) explored how college students from privileged positions actively engaged in advocacy for social justice understood their own development as advocates. Her findings initially suggested students’ willingness and ability to act as social justice allies developed through having increased information on social justice issues. She reported: “participants gained an overwhelming share of their knowledge of social justice issues from their experiences in the classroom” (p. 9). The second critical factor in students’ willingness and ability to act as social justice allies was engagement in a dialectical meaning-making process. Broido (2000) concluded that it was “through reflection, discussion, and perspective taking, [that] the participants developed clarity regarding—and confidence in—their own position on social justice issues” (p. 10). The third finding pointed to the impact of self-confidence on the participants’ willingness to reflect on the role of privilege in their success. These findings pointed to the potential importance of introducing material on social justice in counseling instruction. They also demonstrated the value of specific critical pedagogical practices, namely reflection, dialogue and decoding in the participants’ development of critical consciousness and change agency. Finally, they underscored self-confidence as a student quality that supported a critical examination of their own privileged positions. Exploring Dynamics of Privilege and Oppression Exploring dynamics of privilege and oppression is at the heart of critical pedagogy. A critical examination of one’s own social positions, as well as those of others, is considered integral to developing critical consciousness and social change agency. The findings of Chizhik and Chizhik (2002) highlighted the need for faculty to attend to student meaning with respect to dynamics of privilege and oppression. Chizhik and Chizhik (2002) investigated middle class college students’ conceptions of privilege and oppression. They emphasized the importance for instructors of understanding students’ meaning-making with respect to those dynamics as a means of preparing to effectively guide them. They stated: “Knowing students’ preconceived notions about these terms should help instructors ‘scaffold students’ learning to a more multicultural and social justice orientation (if one does not already exist)” (p. 794). Chizhik and Chizhik (2002) observed that both privileged and oppressed students as defined in terms of racial identity failed to understand these phenomena in systemic terms. They found that, “White students were more likely to blame oppression on internal factors [and believed that] the oppressed are and should be responsible for helping themselves” (p. 805). They also found that students of color were more likely to attribute privilege to factors external to the individual,