Just in case anyone was wondering, since it came up today in class-
the definition of ignorance is to be without knowledge of a specific topic. The definition of naive is having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information. They're not the same thing and definitely should not be treated as such. They're synonyms only in that the same could be said of being forthright, or natural, or virgin.
The connotation of ignorance is of willful unknowing, like that of disregard or of philistinism, while naivete is associated with innocence, childishness, and candor.
There's a difference between being ignorant of cultural competency and being naive of cultural competence.
When I and my classmates go in to practice, we will both have people who are offended that we ask them what gender they identify with and people who will be offended if we don't ask. We will make mistakes, occasionally asking a race-loaded question or by assuming social status. The people we come in contact with will be sensitive to different areas of cultural awareness. For instance, any long time reader here might be aware that I have an extreme sensitivity to social class divide, which comes up nearly every day at my gifted and often entitled school.
I would hope that each person who leaves a cultural competency class will find that there are many assumptions that we hold about the world that informs our every action and word. We use unintelligible idioms every day, shop at certain stores, expect some traditions, like Christmas, or gender identification. The important thing is that we understand where our limitations are-- That when we mess up and wish a wiccan a merry christmas, we can honestly and humbly say "My bad. Happy holidays."
The truth is that not a single one of us has the right to say that the other person is wrong in their belief, practice, tradition, or identity.
(and for those who might claim immediately that of course there is wrong and that I'm a godless heathen for saying there isn't- remember that the Bible says "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Matthew 7:1)
Every person has a right to live their own lives in the best way that they can live them, according to the vision and fate that they follow.
Every person will be at a different point in their own journey.
Some of them might be ignorant. I know I'm ignorant of a great many things, like higher maths, astrophysics, and how to pull a heater core out of a truck. I could learn these things, but I'm not interested.
Some of these people might also be naive, as I believe every person is of some concept or another. I don't necessarily know what I don't know. It's not willful. If I'm offending someone by not knowing something, I truly hope that I'll be told so that I can then be ignorant of it, and hopefully eventually competent in that topic.
As a future physician, I know that I will need to ask about sensitive information. I know I might even have patients that I don't resonate well with, or with whom I flatly disagree. That's not going to change my standard of care- because I'm here living my dream. My dream is to help people find the healing within themselves, regardless of race, religion, gender identification, ignorance, or naivete.
And I hope that everyone shares at least the "regardless of race, religion, gender identification, ignorance, or naivete" half of my dream.
How do you stop a good principle, like the one above, from being taken to the extreme? The argument could be made that this is a first step on the slippery slope towards relativism.
ReplyDeleteIt is a slippery slope-I think the important thing to keep in mind is intent.If the intent is to truly love people, no matter what stage of life or decision making they happen to be at, it'll be harder to fall down the hill.
ReplyDeleteThat stage of love possesses no judgment, but does have the other person's best interest at heart.
The implication would then be that the love-filled doctor would have to know what would be in the best interest of the patient, and be able to nonjudgmentally communicate morally loaded pathways.