A critique of cultural competence: Assumptions, limitations, and alternatives

Abstract

Though cultural competence dominates as an approach to diversity, it has important conceptual limitations. “Culture” is reduced to race and ethnicity, ignoring other identities and framing race and ethnicity as residing only in the “Other,” leaving dominant cultures unproblematized. Culture is presented as unchanging, uniform, and overdetermining of the lives of Others while underemphasized in the lives of professionals. Cultural competence positions professionals as presumed members of dominant groups, rendering racialized and ethnic minority professionals invisible. It is understood as something that can be attained, individualizing failure to do so. This misconstrues structured power relations which cannot be altered individually. Worse yet, competence is measured in terms of learner confidence and/or comfort, which may have little to do with working effectively across differences. In contrast, cultural humility with critical reflexivity is an ethical stance that demands taking responsibility for privilege, reflecting on individual practices always in relation to power structures.